U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36–735 PDF 2007

THE FEDERAL AVIATION

ADMINISTRATION’S

OVERSIGHT OF FALSIFIED

AIRMAN MEDICAL CERTIFICATE APPLICATIONS

(110–60)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 17, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman 

BOB FILNER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS Page

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

Committee Report on Falsification of Airman Medical Certificate Applications ....................................................................................................................... x 

TESTIMONY 

Boyer, Phil, President, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Frederick, 

MD ......................................................................................................................... 23

Garber, Mitchell A., M.D., M.P.H., M.S.M.E., Medical Officer, National Transportation Safety Board ........................................................................................ 3

Sabatini, Hon. Nicholas A., Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, accompanied by Frederick E. Tilton, M.D., 

M.P.H., Federal Air Surgeon, Director, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration .............................................................................. 3

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 3

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 27

Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California ...................................................................... 30

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 33

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 36

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Boyer, Phil ................................................................................................................ 40

Garber, Mitchell A. .................................................................................................. 61

Sabatini, Nicholas A. ............................................................................................... 107

Scovel III, Calvin L. ................................................................................................. 119

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Boyer, Phil, President, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Frederick, 

MD, responses to questions from the Subcommittee ........................................ 55

Garber, Mitchell A., M.D., M.P.H., M.S.M.E., Medical Officer, National Transportation Safety Board, responses to questions from the Subcommittee ........ 66

Sabatini, Hon. Nicholas A., Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, accompanied by Frederick E. Tilton, M.D., 

M.P.H., Federal Air Surgeon, Director, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration, reponses to questions from the Subcommittee 112

Scovel III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, responses to questions from the Subcommittee ..................................... 131

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Federal Aviation Administration’s 2006 Survey of Satisfaction with the Aviation Medical Examination Process ...................................................................... 138

Federal Register, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 14 CFR Parts 61 and 67 ........................................................................ 140

James R. Vanderpool, ANM-700, Northwest Mountain Division Manager (Retired), written statement ..................................................................................... 150

vi


36735.001
vii


36735.002
viii


36735.003
ix


36735.004
x


36735.005
xi


36735.006
xii


36735.007
xiii


36735.008
xiv


36735.009
xv


36735.010
xvi


36735.011
xvii


36735.012
xviii


36735.013
xix


36735.014
xx


36735.015
xxi


36735.016
xxii


36735.017
xxiii


36735.018
(1)

HEARING ON FAA’S OVERSIGHT OF FALSIFIED AIRMAN MEDICAL CERTIFICATE APPLICATIONS 

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2253, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry F. 

Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chair 

will ask all Members, staff, and everyone to turn their electronic 

devices off or on vibrate. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the 

FAA’s oversight of falsified Airman Medical Certificate applications. 

The Chair will give a brief statement, recognize Mr. Petri, the 

Ranking Member, and any other Member that wants to make a 

statement, and then we will introduce our witnesses today. 

I welcome everyone here today to this hearing on the FAA’s oversight of falsified Airman Medical Certificate applications. 

In July 2005, the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General found egregious cases of pilots failing to disclose debilitating 

medical conditions on their applications for Airman Medical Certificates. The U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecuted more than 40 cases, 

but hundreds more could have been pursued if adequate resources 

had been available. The Department of Transportation Inspector 

General made three recommendations in that report, and the FAA 

is actively pursuing those recommendations. 

In April 2007, the FAA began working to implement a strategy 

and system to coordinate with the Social Security Administration 

to verify information on Airman Medical Certificate applications. 

Further, the FAA is revising its application form to explicitly ask 

the applicant if they are receiving medical disability benefits. Both 

are important changes, and I am interested in hearing more from 

Mr. Sabatini and Mr. Scovel on this development. 

The FAA has some of the strictest medical requirements in the 

world. By taking the necessary steps to improve the process, by establishing a way to verify medical information reported to the FAA, 

we can continue to ensure the safety of the pilot and the flying 

public. 

2

I am also pleased that Mr. Boyer, Phil Boyer, is here today to 

testify from AOPA. AOPA is the largest civil aviation organization 

in the world, and they have developed a four-point plan of action 

to educate pilots to address this problem. I am interested in hearing more about the plan from Mr. Boyer when he testifies. 

I have repeatedly said that, while the United States has the 

safest air transportation system in the world, we cannot rely on or 

be satisfied with our past success. We must work together to ensure the highest level of safety for the traveling public. 

Before I recognize Mr. Petri for his comments or opening statement, I ask unanimous consent to allow two weeks for all Members 

to revise and extend their remarks, and to permit the submission 

of additional statements and materials by Members and witnesses. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

join you in welcoming the witnesses this morning and saying that 

I look forward to learning more about the Department of Transportation’s Office of the Inspector General investigation into falsified 

FAA Airman Medical Certificate applications. I guess they are 

called Operation Safe Pilot. 

The vast majority of pilots are law-abiding citizens. However, the 

Inspector General’s investigation indicates that, whether knowingly 

or not, some pilots have made false statements on their Airman 

Medical Certificate applications. These applications are used to 

evaluate a pilot’s physical and mental fitness to fly. 

Of the 40,000 pilot samples considered in Operation Safe Pilot, 

the Inspector General prosecuted 45 of the most egregious cases, 

ultimately resulting in criminal penalties and the revocation of pilots’ licenses. Forty-five pilots whose cases were brought to prosecution were receiving Social Security Administration medical disability benefits for disqualifying conditions without reporting those 

medical conditions on the application for a medical certificate. 

There may have been more criminal cases, but resource limitations prevented the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Inspector General from expanding the investigation. 

It is important to note that the true nature of the problem is still 

not clear. Regardless, I look forward to hearing from our panelists 

on how we can address these issues in a manner that is appropriate to the level of risk these types of omissions pose to the safety 

of the system and to the public on the ground. 

It is my understanding that the FAA is considering a revision to 

the application for the Airman Medical Certificate. Changes to the 

application will make questions clearer so that a pilot could not 

justify an omission based on the wording of a question. I am interested to hear the progress on this effort, as well as an estimate of 

the cost of reviewing and evaluating medical conditions. 

About 20 years ago, the FAA offered a brief amnesty period to 

allow both commercial and recreational fliers the opportunity to 

come forward and report ailments without being subjected to criminal penalties for the omission. I am interested in hearing from our 

panel as to whether allowing another brief amnesty period would 

make sense. 

3

Amnesty only works when there is some threat of enforcement 

after the amnesty period closes. Given the resources available in 

the budget, would it be possible for the FAA to audit all of the 

600,000 commercial and recreational pilot applications, or would 

such action divert resources away from higher risk safety initiatives? Perhaps the FAA could audit a percentage of the applications each year. That way there is always the risk that, if you falsify, you could get caught. It works for the IRS. Why not FAA? 

In any event, I would like to thank our witnesses for participating in today’s hearing, both our government witnesses and one 

of the user groups, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. 

AOPA is one of our great partners in the effort to keep the skies 

safe, and I appreciate their participation in today’s hearing. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and, at 

this time, would first welcome our witnesses and thank you all for 

being here today. Let me introduce our first panel. 

First, the Honorable Calvin Scovel III, who is the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation, who has testified 

before this Subcommittee many times and who shared tenure as 

the IG; Dr. Mitchell Garber, who is the Medical Officer for the National Transportation Safety Board; the Honorable Nicholas 

Sabatini, who is the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety 

with the FAA, and Mr. Sabatini has testified many times before 

the Subcommittee; and Dr. Frederick Tilton, who is the Federal Air 

Surgeon for the Director of the Office of Aerospace Medicine with 

the FAA, who is accompanying Mr. Sabatini here this morning. 

The Chair, at this time, would recognize Mr. Scovel for your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; MITCHELL A. GARBER, M.D., M.P.H., M.S.M.E., MEDICAL OFFICER, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY 

BOARD; THE HONORABLE NICHOLAS A. SABATINI, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY, FEDERAL 

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY FREDERICK 

E. TILTON, M.D., M.P.H., FEDERAL AIR SURGEON, DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF AEROSPACE MEDICINE, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. SCOVEL. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri, Members of 

the Subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to testify today 

regarding falsification of the FAA’s application for Airman Medical 

Certificate. Our testimony today is primarily based on an investigation called Operation Safe Pilot, which we conducted with the Social Security Administration’s Office of Inspector General and U.S. 

Attorney Offices in California. The investigation focused on pilots 

who represented to FAA that they were medically fit to fly, while 

at the same time claiming medical disability benefits. 

Today, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss three key points, 

as we see them, for mitigating the safety risks posed by airmen 

who falsify their Airman Medical Certificate applications. 

First, it is important to recognize that the Airman Medical Certification Program is an essential safeguard to ensure that pilots 

4

are medically fit to fly. FAA requires that each pilot have a valid 

medical certificate before being allowed to operate an aircraft. To 

receive a medical certificate, pilots must complete an Airman Medical Certificate application and be examined by an FAA-designated 

Aviation Medical Examiner. Those who meet the appropriate medical standards based on an in-person medical examination and an 

evaluation of medical history are issued a medical certificate. As of 

June 2007, FAA’s database showed there were over 625,000 pilots 

with current Airman Medical Certificates. 

The Federal Air Surgeon has identified certain medical conditions that specifically disqualify an individual from receiving a 

medical certificate because those conditions could compromise a pilot’s ability to safely operate an aircraft. These conditions include 

neurological and psychiatric disorders. 

Second, our investigation, Operation Safe Pilot, disclosed a potential systemic problem regarding falsification of medical certificates that requires greater attention and oversight by FAA. In 

2003, our office initiated Operation Safe Pilot to determine whether 

a scheme uncovered in 2002 reflected a systemic problem. In the 

2002 case, we determined that a pilot in California had defrauded 

both FAA and Social Security by making false statements to doctors for the purpose of maintaining his FAA private pilot certificate 

while obtaining Social Security benefits. For approximately 14 

years, this pilot had used two different doctors, one to conclude 

that he was in good physical health in order to maintain his Airman Medical Certificate, and one to diagnose him with a disabling 

disease in order to fraudulently receive Social Security benefits. He 

was ultimately convicted of fraud and sentenced to serve a 21 

month prison term and pay nearly $200,000 in restitution. 

Operation Safe Pilot began with a universe of about 40,000 pilots 

residing in Northern California. We focused our investigative efforts on a smaller group of 48 pilots who were receiving Social Security disability benefits. At our request, the FAA Regional Flight 

Surgeon reviewed case files for those pilots and determined they 

would not have passed the airman medical examination had the examining physicians known about the pilots’ disqualifying medical 

conditions. 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office initiated criminal prosecutions against 

all 48 pilots, 45 of whom were convicted of making false statements 

to FAA. In all 48 cases the pilots failed to notify FAA about their 

well documented, severe, pre-existing medical conditions. Many of 

those pilots had multiple disqualifying conditions, with the most 

common condition being some type of mental disorder such as 

schizophrenia. 

In addition to Operation Safe Pilot, both the NTSB and FAA 

have published reports showing that pilots often did not disclose 

serious medical conditions which sometimes resulted in accidents 

and fatalities. For example, a May 2006 FAA research report of 

post-mortem toxicology for 4,143 pilots who died in aviation accidents between 1993 and 2003 found that nearly 10 percent were 

taking some type of psychotropic, cardiovascular, or neurological 

medication not reported on their Airman Medical Certificate applications. The report’s authors essentially concluded that pilots who 

took certain types of medications and were involved in fatal acciVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:51 Feb 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36735 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
5

dents rarely reported those medications and their underlying medical conditions to FAA. 

Third, FAA can take several actions to ensure that disabled pilots do not circumvent the medical certification process. In July 

2005, we sent a memorandum to the DOT Secretary and FAA Administrator highlighting the results of Operation Safe Pilot. We 

pointed out that FAA did not have a mechanism for identifying certificated pilots who were receiving medical disability benefits. We 

recommended that FAA work with the Social Security Administration and other Federal disability providers to, one, develop and implement appropriate checks and take enforcement actions; and, 

two, consider revising its application for Airman Medical Certificates to require applicants to explicitly identify whether they are 

receiving medical disability benefits. 

In April 2007, FAA initiated discussions with Social Security to 

match the FAA database of pilots against relevant Social Security 

databases. Both agencies have been discussing how such a process 

could be structured under the Privacy Act to ensure compliance 

with law. FAA has also expressed its intention to revise the application for Airman Medical Certificate to explicitly ask about the receipt of medical disability benefits. 

These are appropriate first steps. In our opinion, FAA should 

also consider two additional measures: one, conduct an education 

and outreach effort to ensure pilots are fully aware of their responsibilities for accurately disclosing their medical histories on the Airman Medical Certificate application; and, two, offering a grace period to pilots who self-identify previously undisclosed medical conditions. FAA, however, would need to make it absolutely clear that 

all medical conditions disclosed would be evaluated and, unless pilots were found at that time to be medically fit to fly, their Airman 

Medical Certificates would be subject to revocation. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased 

to address any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you and recognizes Dr. Garber 

for his testimony. 

Dr. GARBER. Good morning, Chairman Costello, Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present testimony on 

behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board regarding Federal Aviation Administration’s oversight of falsified Airman Medical Certificate applications. It is a privilege to represent an agency 

that is dedicated to the safety of the traveling public. 

On June 17th, 2002, an aircraft operated by a commercial-rated 

pilot performing wolf survey flights under contract to the Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources descended at high speed into terrain. The pilot and his personal physician, who later became his 

aviation medical examiner for many years, had concealed from the 

FAA information regarding the pilot’s multiple, serious medical 

conditions on seven applications for Airman Medical Certificates. 

The pilot’s physician had denied knowing the pilot when the FAA 

was investigating a report that the physician was treating him for 

these conditions. 

6

At the time of the accident, the pilot’s physician had been decertified as an aviation medical examiner for failure to complete required training, and the pilot did not have a current medical certificate, having been deferred for certification by a new aviation 

medical examiner who noted some abnormal heart rhythms on examination. The Safety Board concluded that the accident was 

caused by the incapacitation of the pilot and that a contributing 

factor was the pilot and his physician providing false information 

on the pilot’s medical applications. 

A recent staff review of over 20,000 aviation accidents investigated since 1995 found 327 in which impairment, incapacitation, 

or a medical condition were identified as causes or factors. Medications and substances of abuse were each found in over 100 of these 

cases. In 26 of these cases, it was determined that a pilot with a 

current medical certificate and a known medical condition had information regarding that condition that was not revealed to the 

FAA at the time of the most recent application for medical certificate. 

It is important to note that these numbers are certainly an underestimate of the extent to which this issue is involved in accidents. In many cases, there is insufficient evidence available to 

completely evaluate the possibility of impairment or incapacitation. 

The Safety Board is fortunate to benefit from the resources of the 

FAA Toxicology Laboratory at the Civil Airspace Medical Institute, 

likely the finest toxicology laboratory in the world for analysis of 

specimens for accident investigations. We are, therefore, often able 

to determine that a pilot used a specific substance in the hours or 

days preceding the accident, most frequently a substance that was 

not reported to the FAA. 

The Safety Board has been concerned for many years regarding 

the inappropriate use of certain medications by pilots and other vehicle operators and, in 2000, issued comprehensive recommendations on this topic to the Department of Transportation, the Food 

and Drug Administration, and modal agencies to improve information provided to such operators regarding the use of appropriate 

medications while engaged in vehicle operations. Although some 

modal agencies have taken responsive actions, the overall response 

to date from the DOT and the FAA has been limited, and the majority of the recommendations on this topic have not been implemented. 

The Safety Board has also noted that, with many accidents due 

to a pilot’s intoxication by alcohol, illicit substances, or large 

amounts of potentially addictive medications, the FAA was or 

should have been aware of information that would have led them 

to conclude that the pilot was substance dependent and would have 

restricted issuance of a medical certificate. In particular, the Board 

has noted a number of instances in which the FAA did not request 

details of an identified DUI conviction in order to determine the 

circumstance of that violation. 

Additionally, the Board has found that the information available 

to the FAA on potentially substance-dependent pilots was often not 

provided to individuals evaluating the pilots for possible substance 

dependence. Furthermore, the Board is concerned that, unlike 

other chronic conditions, the FAA does not now routinely require 

7

that pilots with substance dependence be followed for the condition 

for the period that they hold their medical certificate. The Board 

has recently issued several recommendations to address these deficiencies. 

Finally, the Safety Board notes that, unlike many other countries, and inconsistent with the International Civil Aviation Organization recommendations, there is no requirement for the reporting of medical conditions in between periodic examinations. This 

significantly increases the complexity of establishing that a condition was concealed from the FAA, since it may not have become apparent until after the most recent medical examination. The FAA 

has recently proposed increasing the interval between medical examinations for certain pilots and the Safety Board has noted in its 

comments to that NPRM that a reporting requirement in between 

examinations would be desirable. 

This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Dr. Garber. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Sabatini. 

Mr. SABATINI. Good morning, Chairman Costello, Chairman 

Oberstar, Congressman Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Federal 

Aviation Administration’s oversight of the Airman Medical Certification application process. 

Let me assure you that the FAA takes this matter seriously, and 

we are very concerned about any falsification of information on Airman Medical applications. Let me also say that the vast majority 

of our nation’s pilots are honest, dedicated, and have contributed 

significantly to our current unprecedented safety record. 

FAA agrees with the recommendations of the Inspector General 

on falsified Airman Medical applications, and we are taking steps 

to implement those recommendations, as I will discuss. We are also 

taking other proactive steps regarding this issue, which I will also 

discuss. 

As you are aware, the Department of Transportation Inspector 

General issued a report in 2005 describing the results of an investigation known as Operation Safe Pilot. I will not spend time discussing the details of the IG’s findings; they are already well 

known to you. However, I will discuss the IG’s recommendations 

and the FAA’s response to those recommendations. 

The Inspector General recommended that FAA work with the Social Security Administration and other disability benefits providers 

to develop and implement a strategy to conduct checks of applicants for Airman Medical Certificates with the databases of those 

disability benefits providers and take appropriate enforcement actions where falsifications are found. The IG also recommended that 

FAA consider revising our application for Airman Medical Certificate to require applicants to explicitly identify whether they are receiving medical disability benefits from any provider. 

I am pleased to inform you that the FAA is moving forward to 

implement both of the IG’s recommendations. FAA is working to 

develop a program in cooperation with the Office of the Inspector 

General for the Social Security Administration to cross-check randomly selected applicants for FAA Airman Medical Certificates 

8

with the Social Security disability database to determine if any applicants are receiving disability from the Social Security Administration. 

I must emphasize that we are still working with the Social Security Administration’s IG’s Office and the Social Security Administration itself to determine what information they are willing to 

grant us access to and then develop a framework for how such 

checks will be conducted. We hope to start by cross-checking applicants to the Social Security Administration databases because, to 

receive Social Security disability benefits, an individual must be totally disabled. Thus, virtually any applicant who is receiving Social 

Security Administration disability benefits will necessarily have a 

condition that would disqualify the applicant from holding an Airman Medical Certificate from the FAA. 

While it is premature to discuss any future expansion of the 

cross-checking of applicants to disability databases other than the 

Social Security Administration, we would have to carefully consider 

the potential resources required to conduct investigations and 

make medical determinations regarding an applicant’s disability 

and whether that condition disqualifies the applicant from holding 

an Airman Medical Certificate before taking such a step. 

In order to proceed with cross-checking applicants for Airman 

Medical Certificates against the Social Security Administration disability database or any other database, FAA must first make a 

change in the policy allowing routine use of private information. 

This will require publishing a notice of the proposed change in the 

Federal Register and a comment period before the change can be 

implemented and FAA could begin any cross-checking. This process 

might take six to twelve months to complete. 

However, we will immediately begin efforts to implement the 

IG’s second recommendation, the addition of a question to the Airman Medical Certificate application regarding disability benefits. 

The FAA will propose to OMB the change to the application form 

to include the question. Upon approval from OMB, the new application form can be printed and distributed to Airman Medical Examiners nationwide. 

We are proposing to change the Airman Medical Certificate application to add a question specifically asking if the applicant is receiving any disability benefits. While this additional question appears straightforward, the investigative work will begin after a 

positive response to the question. Once an applicant indicates he 

or she is receiving disability benefits, FAA would then have to investigate to determine the disability benefits provider, the condition for which the applicant is receiving disability benefits, and the 

extent of the applicant’s disability. 

FAA is also being proactive in other areas regarding falsification 

of data on Airman Medical Certificate applications. The FAA Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute has now developed an integrated scientific information system that will provide a continuous monitoring of all Airman Medical Certification records compared to 

aviation accidents or incidents and post-mortem toxicology reports. 

The FAA will, therefore, have the capability of continuously monitoring any aircraft accidents and accessing any discrepancy between the information on the certificate and any post-mortem findVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:51 Feb 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36735 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
9

ings. This includes prescription and non-prescription medications 

and medical abnormalities that could affect the ability to safely 

perform duties permitted by the Airman Certificate and which are 

related to the National Transportation Safety Board causal accident factors. 

In 2006, the FAA’s Office of Aerospace Medicine initiated a routine process analysis study to evaluate and improve the efficiency 

of airman medical certification within the FAA. The Airman Medical Examiner Airman Certification Quality Assurance Study evaluates the accuracy of AMEs in determining the suitability of Airman 

Medical certification. It is another tool that will assist the FAA in 

monitoring this issue. We are committed to expanding our efforts 

to review medical certificates and pursue appropriate enforcement 

actions when falsifications are discovered. 

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by stating that the FAA’s first 

priority always has been and always will be safety. Safety is our 

agency’s mission, and we have dedicated our careers to promoting 

safety. It is a responsibility we do not take lightly. 

This concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer 

any questions the Committee may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Sabatini. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the distinguished Chairman of 

the Full Committee, Chairman Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing; and, Mr. Petri, for your participation, your support of this initiative; and our staff for their extraordinarily rigorous inquiry undertaken, beginning early this year, into this issue of falsified medical certificates. 

I read over, last night and early this morning, the testimony of 

all the witnesses, and I am very encouraged by what I see. The response of FAA to the issue is a positive one and encouraging. 

We do have the safest aviation system in the world. We do have 

the most complex aviation system in the world. But the fact that 

a number of certificated pilots have lied about grave medical conditions in order to retain their pilot’s license is troublesome, worrisome, and in some cases, perhaps frightening. Surely, we can appreciate and be grateful for the statistics that the number of fatal 

accidents caused by medical incapacitation are low. But we 

shouldn’t have to rely on the grace of God to get there. 

A single impaired, intoxicated pilot could cause extensive and 

widespread damage to the public through loss of life or property 

damage. That is what the FAA wrote in an earlier rulemaking. 

FAA does require pilots to undertake periodic medical exams for 

fitness, but they are limited; they rely heavily on self reporting, 

and not all medical conditions are going to be obvious to a doctor 

who is seeing a patient for the first time, especially in the case of 

mental illness. And not all of these AMEs are as thorough as they 

should be. 

The 2006 FAA survey, the Medical Service Airman Customer 

Satisfaction Survey—they have got these wonderful long words and 

usually they come down to an acronym—found that 15 percent of 

airmen reported their medical history had not been reviewed by 

their medical examiner. Seventy-nine percent had no medical history review done at all of that small 15 percent sample. But if you 

10

extrapolate that survey result to the entire pilot population, it 

could be in 1986 that 89,000 pilots did not have an AME review 

their medical histories, and nearly 24,000 pilots did not have a 

physical exam done by an AME. 

Now, the reason we have this AME process is so you have persons who are designated by the FAA who know what they are looking for, know what questions to ask, know what kind of exam to 

give, and they should not be subverted or averted. 

Inspector General Scovel, in 2005, your office found egregious 

cases of airmen lying to the FAA about medical conditions in order 

to pass their medical exams. In the 40,000 pilot sample, the IG’s 

Office found 3,200 airmen with current medical certificates simultaneously receiving Social Security disability pay. Forty of those 

cases ultimately were prosecuted, but hundreds more could have 

been prosecuted if they had had enough personnel in the U.S. Attorney’s Office to do it. 

Over a 10 year period, FAA’s own researchers found 400 fatal accidents where pilots had potentially disqualifying medical conditions. I note with interest in Mr. Sabatini’s testimony, his more detailed testimony, that FAA has gone through these and reduced it 

down to a very small number, small fraction; that if those exams 

had been done and if corrective actions had taken, and if a number 

of other things had happened, you would have had a fraction of a 

percent of irregular medical conditions. But that is not good enough 

and I think, Mr. Sabatini, you recognize that, and you have agreed 

to coordinate with the Social Security Administration. 

In Social Security determination, if you are disabled, you are 100 

percent disabled. Not so with the VA, which has gradations of disability. Some VA disability conditions may permit a person to continue to fly, but that is going to take very careful review. It is going 

to take very careful consideration of all those varying medical conditions. 

I appreciate the seriousness with which Mr. Sabatini, Mr. Chairman, undertakes his responsibilities. He is a premier safety professional. But bringing together the National Driver Register, notifying airmen that they are subject to review through the National 

Driver Register I think is an important point. I am the author of 

the National Driver Register, over 26 years ago. Well, not quite the 

author; it was John Rhodes who preceded me by six years. But I 

did upgrade the National Driver Register and brought it to what 

it is today, and I think it is an exceptionally valuable tool in getting the full picture of airmen’s conditions. 

So I think, while this process has been uncomfortable, maybe 

even painful for the FAA, thanks to the Inspector General’s Office, 

thanks to the NTSB, thanks to our investigative staff, the issues 

have been raised, they have surfaced, they have been examined, 

they have been evaluated, and FAA is on track to taking some vigorous steps toward resolution of the problem and creating an even 

safer airspace. 

I will have some questions later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. Thank you all for your testimony. This is an important subject, as the Chairman of the Full 

11

Committee has pointed out, and it is good that we have oversight 

on it. 

I wonder, maybe Mr. Sabatini might be the right one, if you 

could just sort of walk us through how the procedure works now 

and whether this episode or whatever has pointed out some ways 

of improving the procedure because of computerization and opportunities for cooperation between agencies and the like. 

Mr. SABATINI. The current system today requires that in order to 

exercise the privileges of an Airman Certificate, one must have an 

appropriate medical certificate to accompany those privileges. Depending on the class of medical certificate, nonetheless, one must 

complete an application which has a host of questions, one of which 

specifically requires that you answer whether or not you have been 

convicted of a DUI, or driving while under the influence, and, in 

that instance, 100 percent of medical applications are matched or 

cross-checked with the National Driver Registry. If there is a positive hit, then there is a follow-up investigation that is conducted 

to assess that situation. 

The system is dependent on pilots being honest, and if someone 

is intent on defrauding the system, as the Inspector General has 

discovered, then certainly that is possible. So the current system 

could stand to—as we have agreed—to have some improvements 

included, one of which is going to be adding a question to the questionnaire that specifically requires an answer to whether or not you 

are receiving disability benefits from any disability provider. And 

we will then, on a sampling basis, compare that with, starting with 

the Social Security Administration, a records match; and, of course, 

then follow-up investigation in that regard. 

We are also proposing to not only do the cross-checking, but also 

to add the question, and we are strong advocates of educating the 

community in the many different ways that we can do that. So we 

can advise the community that this is now going to be on the medical certificate and make them aware that there is the potential for 

serious follow-up in terms of enforcement, whether it is from the 

criminal side or whether it is ours, from an administrative procedures side. We will vigorously follow up any indication that there 

is misrepresentation of one’s medical condition. 

Mr. PETRI. There have been stories in the press from time to 

time—I suppose they are accurate, though may be exaggerated—

indicating that when people retire from the military or even from 

various civilian jobs, like being a bus driver or so on, they often 

discover they have some disability and that increases their retirement under some of the programs. I don’t know how widespread 

that is in the Air Force or among pilots, but is that checked? 

Mr. SABATINI. We do not now, today, have a method in place to 

check exactly what it is that you have suggested. But I would also 

tell you that is—and I don’t have factual information, but I can tell 

you anecdotally that we know that there are military retirees who 

have a percentage of disability that, in and of itself, would not necessarily mean being disqualified, or having a condition that would 

prohibit the issuance of an FAA medical certificate. So we don’t 

have any numbers on that, Mr. Petri, and that is the current state, 

but we hope to change that. 

12

Mr. PETRI. One question. This works both ways, with Social Security, at least, and some of these other programs; people may be 

perfectly good pilots, but they may not actually have the disability 

that they are getting paid for. Was fraud discovered that way as 

this match was done, or was it only a check on the qualification 

of people to actually fly airplanes? 

Mr. SABATINI. The investigation—and I might defer to the Inspector General who conducted the investigation—was primarily to 

assess people who were claiming disability and who also had a pilot 

medical certificate. And Social Security Administration disability is 

100 percent disability, and once you have that, you would not qualify for an FAA medical certificate, so that would be a concern to 

us and we would want to ferret that information out. 

Mr. PETRI. Maybe I should ask Mr. Scovel. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Petri. I do have some information 

that may help you understand the extent of that problem. We 

touched base last week with the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General and we were informed that, to date, six 

cases of disability fraud from Operation Safe Pilot had been identified for their purposes. They report total monetary achievements—

and that is their term—of $499,706 achieved from Operation Safe 

Pilot. The breakdown includes $425,160 in savings due to canceled 

benefits extrapolated over a period of five years; $66,513 in fraud 

identified; and $8,033 recovered by way of restitution. 

It is clear that, while Social Security has identified six cases to 

date, they have informed us that they continue to work other cases, 

so a limited number of subsequent court cases may well come to 

our attention. Comparing that against the number of cases which 

we identified and which the U.S. attorney chose to prosecute, it is 

clear that the intent on the part of most of the pilots that we identified as investigative targets was to deceive the FAA, as opposed 

to the Social Security Administration. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 

York, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and 

our esteemed witnesses. 

Inspector General, what do you estimate that it costs per prosecution to carry out Operation Safe Pilot, and would the FAA likely 

incur similar costs if they were to pursue administrative sanctions? 

If not, what would account for the difference? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Hall. We had an opportunity to 

evaluate the cost to my office of pursuing Operation Safe Pilot. 

They amounted to a total of $401,192. The majority of that had to 

be charged to the direct labor hours of the investigation, but we 

also incurred administrative overhead costs, some travel costs, and 

other direct costs. That cost figure did not include FAA or U.S. Attorney Office costs, I should note. 

The cost per case prosecuted—and I will note that there were 45 cases prosecuted—was $8,915 per case. My testimony mentioned 

the figure of 48 cases. Those were the number of individuals that 

we referred to the U.S. attorney for consideration for prosecution. 

Three of those cases could not be pursued, as I mentioned in my 

testimony, two because the individuals died before the U.S. attorVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:51 Feb 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36735 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
13

ney could bring charges and one because the individual was 

deemed to lack sufficient capacity to participate in his defense at 

trial. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. On another topic, during Operation Safe 

Pilot, did you find that the falsifications were more prevalent in the 

general aviation community or were cases where cargo or air transportation pilots were not being truthful? And do these categories 

pose a higher safety risk than GA pilots? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thanks. I will note that among the cases that we 

identified and referred to the U.S. attorney, there were 4 airline 

transport-rated pilots, 6 commercial pilots, 28 private pilots, and 7 

student pilots. The figure of 28 private pilots, presumably all GA 

pilots, amounted to 62 percent of the number of cases we referred 

to the U.S. attorney. I don’t think, and I won’t say today on the 

record, that that indicates that general aviation pilots pose a greater threat. The reason, as I see it, that, in fact, 62 percent of our 

investigative targets happen to be private and presumably GA pilots was simply because of the investigative parameters that we 

and the U.S. Attorney’s Office set. In other words, we were looking 

at the type of disability claimed, the nature and duration of the falsification that had been submitted to FAA as part of the medical 

certificate application, and also the U.S. attorney’s prosecutive requirements; they basically were looking for open and shut cases. 

Applying all of those factors to the number of cases that we had 

under consideration, more private pilots—in fact, 62 percent—rose 

to the surface, and air transport pilots and commercial pilots represented smaller numbers. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. 

This one is both to Dr. Garber and to Mr. Sabatini. The Inspector 

General’s testimony notes that the FAA and SSA are trying to 

work in compliance under the Privacy Act to create a list to crosscheck applicants who may not have disclosed this potentially disqualifying type of condition. In your estimation, can the system be 

set up within the current structure of the Privacy Act or, at some 

point, does Congress need to consider amending the statute to 

allow the process to move forward? 

Dr. GARBER. I think that that question probably would be better 

handled by Mr. Sabatini, as it goes to the sharing of information 

between those two agencies, so I will defer to him on that question. 

Mr. SABATINI. What we are proposing is a notice in the Federal 

Register to inform the public about routine use of information that 

would be available through the Social Security Administration 

database and our database. As to the Privacy Act, I would have to 

defer to our attorneys to answer that question, since that is more 

of a legal issue, but certainly we would respect whatever the requirements are of the Privacy Act. 

Mr. HALL. Are there technological or proprietary barriers to moving forward in terms of this coordination with SSA and FAA? 

Mr. SABATINI. We are in discussions with the Social Security Administration, the Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General, and, of course, our people, working out a memorandum of understanding on how best to implement this. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

14

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Kuhl. You pass? Very 

good. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much 

for having a very worthwhile and thoughtful hearing on an important safety issue. I thank Mr. Oberstar, as well, for his interest and 

concern in this vital matter. 

Thank you all for very extensive and informative testimony. As 

a pilot—I was just looking—the form that we fill out is quite comprehensive in nature and it can lead in a number of different directions. Safety is the issue which everyone in this room holds 

above—by considerable margins—anything else we are talking 

about. 

So, with that as a backdrop, would you all care to speculate out 

loud about the dangers we face? We have talked about medical 

issues, we have talked about falsification, all of which are very serious. We have talked about jointly looking at double-dipping. All 

these are crucial. Having said that, again, do you have any concern 

that we might get beyond where we need to go and make this complicated form even more complicated, which, at the end of the day, 

puts a damper on the vital commerce provided by commercial—and 

that is an issue, because some of the things we do here concern 

commercial pilots—that the process may be slowed down for them. 

By the same token, general aviation and that group of pilots is important to business and commerce as well. 

Could you just speculate for me about some of the precautionary 

measures that we, on both sides of the bench, should be aware of 

as we move forward in this very important process? Dr. Tilton, we 

have left you alone. May I start with you? 

Dr. TILTON. Thank you, sir, for the question. I am certainly, obviously, very concerned. As you said, safety is paramount. I work for 

Mr. Sabatini in the Office of the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, so whenever I give a talk, the first thing I say is the 

safety of the airspace is number one; and then number two is to 

make sure, once we make that as the ground assumption, that 

every airman that we can possibly get back in the air, we do so. 

And we have a good record. Obviously, we are very concerned about 

the small minority of people who might take advantage of the system and give us incorrect information. 

And I am concerned somewhat about making the process more 

complicated, but I think what we proposed are the correct level of 

response to the IG’s investigation. I don’t think that we are asking 

for any more ominous requirements on the part of the airman; we 

are just making the questions a little more explicit so there is absolutely no question in his or her mind that, when they answer the 

question, they are doing it correctly. And it give us one more opportunity to make sure the airspace is safe. 

Certainly, I am not interested in making the system more egregious and difficult to participate in, but I think safety, again, is 

paramount in this situation. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you very much. At the risk of sounding like 

doing a promotion for AOPA, which is not my intention, I held up 

15

the AOPA turbo medical, which is an online service that pilots who 

are for the first time or going to renew their certificate, can go online and look at some of the very complicated but relevant chemical 

and other issues there are. I am working with constituents right 

now. If you check off a block that says ‘‘have you ever been unconscious,’’ then a whole host of things happens to you. In this particular case, there was an automobile accident and the law enforcement officer said the person was unconscious and he says he never 

was. Well, if he was never unconscious, his life is much easier. 

Again, neurological issues are important. I simply make the point, 

going forward, that I would encourage the continuation of this process, but filtering in as heavy a dose of common and practical sense 

as we can moving forward. 

Again, this is kind of off the wall, it is not in the official questions, but is there an appropriate place to consider even a fourth 

class medical? It is kind of like somebody learning to drive. If you 

are out in the pasture and there is not a tree within 300 yards, and 

you are driving and learning, that is one thing. There is a lot of 

aviation that relates to that, as opposed to using sophisticated aircraft in congested area space. Good reason for first, second, and 

third class. Is there any fault, again, as a part of this effort, to improve safety and focus on the right areas that maybe even an additional to correspond with sport class license might be appropriate. 

Mr. Sabatini or Dr. Tilton? Anyone. My time has expired. 

Mr. SABATINI. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. We do not now have any 

thoughts about a fourth class medical certificate, but we do have 

different grades, the first, second, and third; and we also have, for 

light support aviators, other conditions under which they cannot 

safely operate. That was done through a very rigorous process of 

an NPRM and comments from the general public, and we are convinced that is a safe approach. So, in essence, there almost is something like a fourth class medical certificate. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have taken it over my 

time, but I appreciate your thoughtful responses as we work toward better aviation safety and a practical response. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee, Chairman Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Garber, in your statement you allude to the number of aviation accidents where medical conditions contributed to, or were a 

factor, and say that that number is underestimated. What was 

your basis for that? 

Dr. GARBER. Well, we don’t have the resources, sir, the NTSB 

does not have the resources to do a complete aeromedical investigation of every single accident. We focus on those accidents where 

there is evidence, either from autopsy information, toxicology information, or the circumstances of the accident itself, suggesting in 

fact that there may be medical or medication issues in regard to 

the accident itself. So those are the ones that we look at. 

Given that, there are probably some of those that we are not able 

to make a determination; there is simply insufficient information 

available, even with a comprehensive investigation, to come to a 

16

conclusion as to whether or not the medical condition or the medication played a role in the accident. For that reason I say that the 

circumstances are certainly underestimated. To that extent, it is 

difficult to say, but I would say that we do a thorough job investigating those where we have significant information suggesting 

that the individual may have been impaired. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You had a staff review of 20,000 aviation accidents, which you reviewed, since 1995 and found 327 in which a 

medical condition, impairment or incapacitation, including overthe-counter medications, antihistamines and commonly known 

name of Benadryl. So it raises the question what makes a condition 

a disqualifying condition. Some of these are cardiac valve replacements; diabetes requires insulin; epilepsy. What other conditions 

are disqualifying? And what medications taken randomly, even 

over-the-counter medications, can cause incapacitation? 

Dr. GARBER. Sir, I will speak a little bit to the medication issue 

in that the NTSB has recommended more comprehensive information be provided to pilots and other transportation operators with 

regard to the medication issue. There is no real comprehensive list 

of medications that are either disqualifying or permitted within the 

transportation industry or oversight regulatory area, so it is very 

difficult to determine which medications, from an operator perspective, would be allowed or would be disallowed if one was to indicate 

that they were using those; and we believe that that should be corrected. The NTSB has made recommendations in regard to that. 

With regard to the question about the medical conditions which 

are disqualifying and why, I think I will defer that question to the 

FAA. They can give you more background as to why they have chosen the particular conditions that they have as being disqualifying 

in that regard. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I will pursue that in a moment. Recently, the 

Board made a recommendation that FAA should require airmen reporting conditions involving driving while impaired by alcohol or 

drugs to provide a complete copy of the relevant arrest report, including, maybe, court records. Why do you believe that is necessary? 

Dr. GARBER. In the same way that the FAA requires records to 

be submitted on any disqualifying condition. If you were to mention 

to the FAA, as an example, that you had been in an emergency 

room for chest pain, they would request information as to the outcome of that evaluation and the specific information that was developed during that evaluation. In the same way, we think it is 

very important for circumstances like a DUI, which are significant 

indicators of a potential problem with substance abuse or dependence, should be evaluated more completely. An individual who may 

have had one or two drinks may not have an issue with abuse of 

the substance or dependence, but an individual who is driving on 

a very high level of alcohol may certainly be exhibiting evidence of 

tolerance, which, by the FAA’s own definition, is an indication of 

substance dependence. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I think it is an important recommendation 

and an important action to take because that arrest report gives 

a complete picture, not just a little slice, not just a little subtitle 

or headline; but it gives the medical examiner an opportunity for 

17

a complete review of the circumstances. As Mr. Hayes referenced 

a moment ago, the question of ‘‘were you ever unconscious.’’ Well, 

under what circumstances? The arrest report would provide that 

kind of information. 

In the course of NTSB review of all—you looked at 20,000 

records, you at NTSB and your staff followed these issues very 

thoroughly, very carefully. Are you persuaded that the airman 

medical evaluation is rigorous enough? Should the whole process be 

reconsidered, re-evaluated? 

I want to get Mr. Scovel’s reaction to that as well. 

Dr. GARBER. The NTSB has made specific recommendations in a 

variety of areas; for instance, medications and substance dependence, as we have discussed here. Also, we have commented that we 

believe that there should be a reporting requirement to the system 

itself. The system itself, however, is fairly robust, like many other 

areas of aviation, and provides a significant review of those conditions under fairly strict guidelines, and in that regard probably is 

something of a model for other agencies, other organizations that 

share the same sort of regulatory oversight. There are areas for improvement, and the NTSB has certainly specified the areas where 

we believe improvement is both possible and should be made in the 

interest of safety. At the same time, we do recognize that this is 

a significant oversight function which is generally performed in a 

fairly substantial manner by the FAA. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Scovel, have you evaluated the airman medical review and do you think it is adequate as it stands, or should 

it be overhauled? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I would begin by noting that my testimony this morning, of course, is based on Operation Safe Pilot, which was a criminal investigation project undertaken in one corner of the Country, really. We have not audited a 

full-blown audit of the Airman Medical Certification Program, so I 

am not able to say with authority that the program itself is systemically deficient. 

I think we can say, however, based on both the results of Operation Safe Pilot and on the results of an FAA survey from 2006, 

which was referred to by the Committee earlier, that improvement 

in oversight certainly is to be desired. Operation Safe Pilot identified some limited systemic problems and we have suggested improvements to FAA and to the Committee to remedy those. The 

2006 survey, which, to its credit, FAA itself undertook—it was not 

an IG project—identified problems, however, with the airman medical examination itself. Some of those examinations, as reported by 

airmen, had been conducted not by physicians, but by non-physicians. In a significant number of instances there was no detailed 

inquiry during the examination of the airman’s reported medical 

history. That too is required by FAA regulations. We would encourage the Committee and, of course, FAA to tighten up its oversight 

and the procedures involved in the actual examination that airmen 

undergo by Airman Medical Examiners, too. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Scovel. 

Dr. Tilton, are you satisfied that FAA’s AME is as good as it 

should be, needs to be? 

Dr. TILTON. Sir, I am satisfied that the process——

18

Mr. OBERSTAR. And enough oversight of the process and enforcement? 

Dr. TILTON. I am certainly satisfied that the standards we have 

and the process we have set up is correct. I am obviously not satisfied by results of the survey that the IG just told you about and 

that you have referred to because we always have concerns any 

time we find out someone is not complying or following the correct 

process. So, in the case of this particular survey, it was an anonymous survey, so how do we then proceed upon reviewing the results and making a determination? What we do is, we talk to our 

AMEs. And the purpose of the bulletin, where you noted that particular survey, is education to the AMEs on how they should be 

educating their airmen. The other thing that we do is, we go to air 

shows. For instance, in a week or so I will be at Oshkosh; we go 

to Sun ’n Fun and we talk to airmen directly. In every seminar we 

have with airmen, we talk to them about the importance of the system, and we also tell them if they find an AME like the ones that 

are reported in this anonymous survey, they should let us know. 

And when we know that information, we take positive action 

against that AME to make sure that he or she is appropriately disciplined, including de-designation. 

So although I think we need to do more, we always can do more, 

I think we have a good system. We need to keep looking at it and 

making sure that every time we find information like this, we take 

positive action to correct it. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, taking the positive action is critically important, and strong enforcement action. 

Mr. Sabatini, an FAA researcher last winter found, during a 10 

year period, 10 percent of pilots involved in fatal accidents tested 

positive for medications used to treat potentially disqualifying medical conditions, but only 20 percent of them reported their medical 

condition on their airman application. Is that acceptable? 

Mr. SABATINI. Absolutely not, sir. As I said in my opening comments and my closing comment, safety is paramount for us, and 

every system can stand improvement, and I can assure you, Mr. 

Chairman, that we will vigorously pursue anyone who falsifies information provided as required to be provided. 

I would also like to point out that while this report, this survey 

that is being discussed here was exactly that, it was anonymous to 

solicit information, again, it is an indication of how the FAA is 

being vigilant to assess what is going on in a system that is highly 

dependent on voluntary compliance. 

I would also add that the recommendation that was made by the 

NTSB has been taken very seriously by us, and, in discussions as 

recent as this past week, I can assure you that we will be taking 

the kind of action that is going to require an airman to provide us 

with the full record of that person’s arrest or conviction, or whatever the case may be, as well as exploring whether we can, in fact, 

get that record from the law enforcement organization. So it is a 

new area for us, but we take very seriously what has been recommended. It makes good sense. There is a possibility of tolerance. 

That is unacceptable in our community, and we are working vigorously to address these areas of, as has been said, in the area of 

oversight. 

19

I would also tell you, as Dr. Tilton has said, the standards that 

we have are global standards. We are sought after and asked to 

share with the global community how we go about the business of 

certifying from, a medical perspective, our airmen. So I believe the 

standard is more than adequate and I would tell you that the FAA 

is vigilant and will continue to be vigorous in its pursuit of anyone 

who misrepresents information. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We are counting on you to be vigilant. We are 

counting on FAA to be the gold standard for the whole world in all 

of aviation safety, and that means pursuing these matters vigorously. In that analysis of the research, 40 percent of those pilots 

were rated for air transport or cargo operations. It didn’t say 

whether they actually were operating as Part 121 pilots, but it is 

troubling that apparently these more stringent medical exams were 

not applied in those cases. You are going to correct that? 

Mr. SABATINI. Oh, absolutely, sir. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. All right, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Reichert. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow 

up on a couple of comments and a couple of lines of questioning by 

Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Petri that has to do with process. 

I am not a pilot, but I fly a lot as a passenger, and have over 

the last number of years. But what I have done in my past career 

is investigate; 33 years with the sheriff’s office in Seattle. My last 

eight years was as the sheriff. We have an air support unit there, 

so I have been responsible for, of course, making sure that our pilots are trained well and meet the medical requirements. And as 

you know, safety, of course, is our number one priority in the sheriff’s office, too. And here, today, we are talking about safety and 

keeping our airlines safe and the pilots safe and the passengers 

safe. 

Again, the process is—it seems like there are a lot of moving 

pieces here, for me. The medical evaluation and the medical application is completed; there is an employment application. Does that 

marry up? Do those two documents marry up when the pilots 

apply—in the case of a commercial pilot—to the airlines for a job? 

How does that work? Or do they have their own separate medical 

document that they need to complete? 

Mr. SABATINI. First of all, let me say that we have a lot in common. I am a retired New York City police officer, spent 20 years 

in the NYPD, 11 of those years flying in the air unit. So I am very 

familiar with that kind of support. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you for your service. 

Mr. SABATINI. I would say that the medical certificate is required 

to be provided as evidence to a potential employer as to the qualifications that are required for that particular position. You will 

then be subjected to, say, an air carrier’s own medical examination 

as well. So, in that sense they come together. Whether the air carrier in fact researches the medical certificate, I can’t answer that 

with certainty at this point in time. 

Mr. REICHERT. You know, in the NYPD and in the King County 

Sheriff’s Office, as you go through this process of hiring someone, 

20

a medical application is completed, there is a release that is signed 

for medical records. Does that occur in the pilot field? 

Mr. SABATINI. Before someone can be hired in the air carrier 

world, I know the acronym, I can’t think of the actual description, 

but it’s the pilot record, PRIA, that has to be complied with in 

terms of—the air carrier has access to the previous history of the 

pilot, and I believe that will include the medical certificate as well. 

Mr. REICHERT. So as these applications are completed, is there—

we have background investigators that go out to the sites and visit 

with neighbors and friends of people applying for a job. Is there a 

polygraph given to prospective employees of airline companies? 

Mr. SABATINI. I don’t know of any air carrier, so I can’t speak 

with authority on it, but I doubt that there would be a polygraph. 

There are many examinations that are required, written exams or 

questions that need to be answered. But I will tell you this, that 

the system is a robust system. Before someone actually ends up at 

the controls of an aircraft—and let’s use the air carrier world as 

an example—one must go through required training, basic indoctrination to that air carrier’s system. And that is not an option, it 

is required by Federal regulation. Once the training is complete, 

then that person must demonstrate through a flight check with 

their own instructors that the person is competent and proficient 

in that particular pilot station that person may be sitting in; then 

followed by an FAA proficiency check to ensure that that person 

can in fact execute the responsibilities of that position. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you. My time is really going by here fast. 

In the law enforcement world, you fill out this application, you 

know, ‘‘have you used drugs in the past;’’ and, of course, there are 

time limits on some of the more major drugs. Marijuana is also listed on there; how long ago did you use it, those sorts of things. And 

when those questions are asked on the medical application, the 

polygraph test is given and they say on the application ‘‘we have 

never taken this drug, we have never taken this drug,’’ and it has 

been 10 years since but it has been 5 years in reality. A polygraph 

test catches that sort of thing. 

The other thing is, we have a fit-for-duty, as you know, in law 

enforcement. When you recognize something with a pilot, is there 

a fit-for-duty examination? 

And the last comment I want to make here, before you respond, 

is the connection between SSA and the FAA and medical records—

and you say if they are on Social Security, there is 100 percent disability. There is no need, then, to really know what the personal 

medical history is if the Social Security system has already reviewed that, given the 100 percent disability. All you need to know 

is if he or she is on Social Security, and they are gone. 

I am over time, but could they answer, Mr. Chair? Thank you. 

Mr. SABATINI. That is true. We would, at that point in time, if 

it was an SSA disability, that person would automatically be disqualified. But there is a due process that we must follow and revoke that medical certificate. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Mr. Sabatini and Dr. Tilton, you have heard from the Chairman 

of the Full Committee, Chairman Oberstar, and I think other Members of this Subcommittee were pleased that the FAA is moving in 

21

the right direction to correct some of these problems, one, by looking at the database and working with the Social Security Administration; two, by revising the form to specifically ask the question 

if the applicant is receiving any disability. So we are pleased that 

you are moving in that direction. 

You heard Mr. Scovel testify that there are improvements that 

need to come about in oversight. Also, the fact that there were 

some examinations apparently given by non-medical doctors. I 

want to give both of you the opportunity to comment on both of 

those issues, on improving oversight and the fact that apparently 

some examinations have been given by non-medical doctors. I wish 

you would comment on both, please. 

Mr. SABATINI. Sir, let me give you my first response in terms of 

non-medical. Again, it is the FAA aggressively pursuing information that can help us be good at the work that we are responsible 

for, and that is the oversight of the system. I would suspect that—

first, let me say that no one has ever been issued a medical certificate that was not signed off by a doctor. So perhaps in the office—

and this is speculation on my part, and that is the issue that we 

have in terms of surveys that are anonymous—we can’t pursue 

that person and find out exactly what they are referring to. But it 

is possible that there are physician assistants who performs a preliminary medical examination and then present the information to 

the doctor in the office, and that doctor is then required to, of 

course, be the person who signs off on the medical authorization 

and the issuance of the certificate. 

But I will turn to Dr. Tilton and ask him to expand on that. 

Dr. TILTON. I agree with what Mr. Sabatini said. It certainly is 

possible that occurred. It is not in line with our process. We do use 

ancillary personnel to do things such as EKGs or draw blood or 

check the blood pressure, but the AME, he or she, is duly responsible to do that examination; they are required to lay hands on the 

patient, to do the various tests that the physician should be doing 

to ensure to him or herself that that is done correctly. 

Whenever we find out that there is a case where that hasn’t been 

done, we take aggressive action against that AME. It is difficult 

sometimes to get that information, and we have heard anecdotes 

about some people traveling a long way to get their physical because they know if they pay such an amount of money, they will 

get it without a whole lot of difficulty involving the AME himself. 

When we find out about that case, we take action against those; 

and we rarely find those. In fact, we have a process now that we 

look at all our AMEs; we look at how many examinations they do, 

we look at where they are located, we look at how far people travel 

to get to that AME to compare distances. For instance, if someone 

has traveled 3,000 miles to get their physical—why? We have a 

good example of that in Prescott, Arizona. Although Prescott, Arizona has the school Embry-Riddle, so there is good reason why people coming from some other State might have their physicals there. 

We haven’t found any meat in that data, although we have reviewed it very carefully. 

I am very concerned about this information where we hear that 

an AME has not done the physical correctly or they haven’t seen 

22

the doctor, and when we find that out, we will take aggressive action to make sure that doesn’t happen again. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Dr. Garber mentions in his statement the fact 

that he talks about anonymous reporting, and I am just curious 

how many anonymous reports on a pilot’s medical condition does 

the FAA receive? Is it a large number or is it rare that someone 

anonymously reports a medical condition to the FAA of a pilot? 

Dr. TILTON. Sir, I wouldn’t say it is—it is not every day, but it 

is not rare, either. We get several anonymous reports yearly, and 

what we do with those reports is we immediately go out to that airman and we acknowledge that we have information that may affect 

that airman’s privileges, and we ask them for more information. Of 

course, with an anonymous report, sometimes we find out it was 

somebody who had some kind of reason, an ex-wife or something, 

and that does occur occasionally. But we do take action; we ask for 

more information. Sometimes we get family members saying, you 

know, my husband is 86 years old and I am really concerned and 

I don’t want to do anything about it myself, but I would really like 

you to do something. We will pursue that; we will ask for more 

medical information to see if there is substance. If there is substance, we take action. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Last question. I think we all recognize that some 

pilots have intentionally failed to disclose information on their applications and others inadvertently leave off, omit, or fail to report 

either medication or other debilitating illnesses. Both the IG and 

AOPA have suggested that there should be an amnesty period before we begin to do the match-up, the matching program, and I just 

want your comments, Mr. Sabatini and Dr. Tilton. Do you believe 

that we, in fact, should proceed with an amnesty program? Please. 

Mr. SABATINI. I believe a grace period would be an appropriate 

action to take, but I would caution so that we all understand. In 

those circumstances where someone were to reveal a medical condition that would be disqualifying, we would still take the appropriate revocation action of that medical certificate, even though 

they came forward voluntarily and revealed that condition. In other 

circumstances we would not pursue any punitive action. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Sabatini, Dr. Tilton, 

Dr. Garber, and Mr. Scovel, for your testimony today, and we look 

forward to following up on this important issue with the FAA as 

they move forward to implement this program. We thank you, and 

the first panel is dismissed. 

We would ask the second panel, consisting of one witness, to 

come forward, please. 

Let me recognize and introduce our sole witness on the second 

panel and let Members know, and the first panel know, of course, 

as always, that there are questions that we will submit both for the 

first panel and Mr. Boyer, as well, in writing for the record. So we 

want both Members and witnesses to know that. 

We recognize now Mr. Phil Boyer, the President of the Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association, for his testimony. And let me say, 

before you present your testimony, Mr. Boyer, we greatly appreciate both you and your organization taking this issue very seriously and coming up with a four-point plan to address the issue, 

23

and we look forward to hearing your testimony and hearing you explain what that plan is about. 

TESTIMONY OF PHIL BOYER, PRESIDENT, AIRCRAFT OWNERS 

AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION, FREDERICK, MD 

Mr. BOYER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just before starting, 

not exactly the appropriate place, but I would like to thank you, 

your leadership, the Committee, Ranking Member Petri for a really 

sane approach to financing the entire FAA, not just the section we 

are talking about here. You have our undivided support of all of 

our membership for H.R. 2881. 

You know about us, 412,000 members. That is two-thirds of all 

of those certificates that were reported earlier. And, in the main, 

many of these are the private pilots that we were talking about. 

The organization has always taken medical services very, very seriously. As a matter of fact, there are about 30,000 member contacts 

a year, 13,000 of those by phone that we answer. So it is a good 

example of industry and the industry self-policing itself. We even 

cover non-members. We talk about medical action in magazines 

and in our electronic publications, including the website. 

Let me tell you—and pardon me, Mr. Graves, for talking about 

something you know about—a medical certificate is a pilot’s most 

prized possession. It is sacred. I mean, getting a license is one 

thing, but let’s not forget, you must be medically certified to be in 

one of these categories that we are talking about. Therefore, when 

ramp checked or anything else, a pilot has to have not only the 

original license of issue, but also that medical certificate, and since 

9/11, through the actions of our group, a photo ID. 

Once again, pardon me, Sam, but just to clarify, there are three 

levels of medical certification. The third class, that is somebody 

who flies not for hire, generally taking a family, a business associate, somebody who knows them up; not, as was mentioned, somebody who is flying or taking up in law enforcement. That is good 

for three years except, for most of us over 40, for two years we go 

to the doctor. And, actually, there is a proposal and a ruling right 

now on the docket that would—a notice of proposed rulemaking 

that would extend that period to five years. It is an example of our 

talking about an issue that is constantly changing. The technology, 

the medicines really do need to be looked at, and not stay with 

rules from 1940 or earlier, when we are looking at what we certify 

and what we don’t certify; and, as we all know, that brings us a 

lot of longevity. 

The second class medical, which is the first place in which you 

would fly for hire or carry passengers, is used for the commercial 

pilot certificate. It is good for one year. And then the airline pilots 

that we were talking about have to go for a medical—and the corporate aircraft—every six months. And this rulemaking I talked 

about is being proposed to extend that to one year. 

One thing that wasn’t brought up that I think is very, very interesting and should be considered as we talk about that is the FARs 

continue to emphasize that the pilot must determine that he or she 

is healthy to fly before every flight. And it is a violation of the 

rules—whether you are taking an antihistamine, a prescription 

drug, or whatever—if you are not self-certifying before flights. And 

24

those of us who have flown many times know bad cold, maybe an 

injury to the foot or something that might affect a rudder pedal is 

a reason we might have another pilot onboard flying our plane. 

Just to look at the misconception out there is—you heard a lot 

of statistics. In the end, we are dealing with reasonable people who 

don’t want to go out and kill themselves and their family; a very 

conservative group of people who will ground themselves before 

flights when they are taking a medication or have some other kind 

of medical situation; and medical incapacitation is rare. One-quarter of one percent of all accidents are due to medical incapacitation. 

Now, you heard larger numbers than that, but that would be like 

me looking at somebody who had 50 stab wounds, was obviously 

killed, and then we examined that individual and found that they 

may have had a plaque buildup in their arteries. The real reason 

were those 50 stab wounds. The plane ran out of fuel or this or 

that. But, once again, you heard that word ‘‘possibly.’’ The actual 

data shows one-quarter of one percent. And if we look at medical 

fraud, five-one hundredths of one percent. Now, once again, we 

don’t condone any kind of falsification of fraudulent records. 

And I will tell you, in preparing for this, in talking to the Committee, and in really seeing the IG’s report, as a 40-year pilot, I 

was never aware that this complicated form that Congressman 

Hayes referred to—that there were these kinds of penalties if we 

didn’t get something right; and I will tell you, it is not difficult to 

forget that doctor’s exam that you went to. I just was thinking 

about, now, where would that apply to me when I go in next April. 

And, you know, I went to the doctor about four months ago for a 

sore in my heel. Turned out to be a burr caused by a shoe. I might 

forget that when I am going to an AME. It had nothing to do with 

my flying. And that would be counted as a falsification of the 

record. So we have got to understand that there are inadvertent errors. 

There is a question 17 on here: Do you take any non-prescription 

medicines? Somebody starts filling it in and it causes you to be 

kicked back if you, once in a while, take a Tylenol. Believe me, in 

this job, and I am sure in your jobs, you have to take one of those 

every once in a while. 

One of the things I think we want to protect is, that the FAA 

budget, the Civil Aviation Medical Institute is not well funded; it 

is a flat budget. The people that you are looking for—Sabatini and 

Tilton—to do all this fact checking are not given a great budget, 

and right now many of your members probably write you and say, 

‘‘could you help me get my medical; I’ve put in all the paperwork 

and it doesn’t come through.’’ That is because this area of FAA has 

never been given the proper money. So if we are going to do other 

things, let’s make sure the FAA has the budget to do them. 

And I think the four-point plan that we have outlined—and I am 

not going to take a lot of time on it because, actually, you are 

aware of it in my testimony and it has been spoken to already, but 

we ought to have a warning on the form, a public disclosure that 

the data will be shared with public agencies. Let’s face it now, security agencies are looking at this, not just the driver record. So 

let’s add to that all agencies. And, you know what? In September 

of 2005, when the IG report first came out, we wrote a letter to the 

25

FAA saying let’s do this; not waiting for this Committee to have 

a hearing or anything like that. 

Proactively, let’s look at identifying falsifications. So let’s say I 

had filled out that application last April and I hadn’t talked about 

this little burr on the heel of my foot when I visited a doctor. Once 

again, not disqualifying, but I didn’t put that I had that physician 

visit. Let’s give this amnesty period we talked about for people to 

clear up things like that; not that I had heart bypass surgery and 

I didn’t put it in. I mean, they will have to go through the rigors 

of getting back in. 

And then I think one of the most important things is a data 

sharing program. Let’s not put the onus on the FAA. They don’t 

have the budget to do this, and it is going to slow down, it is going 

to increase your e-mail and letter flow, and mine, to help pilots as 

our constituents. 

But the most important thing is we will help. With the size of 

our publications, the size of our organization, the many ways to 

reach pilots, we will get back in and talk about the changes that 

will occur to the medical form. For more than four years we have 

had, like Turbo Tax, a medical form online. It was referred to here 

by Congressman Hayes. It allows you to go through, and if you 

make a mistake or fill in a box wrong—this is before you go to the 

doctor—it kicks it back and says that medication is not valid under 

FAA rules, you may want to try this kind of beta blocker or something else. 

For four years we tried to get the FAA to accept this form. They 

spent a lot of money and now have just recently come out with 

their own electronic form, so now they are saying, okay, we will accept yours. We had already spent the money and could have done 

it for the FAA, but it is out there and we will promote that. 

The penalties—things I didn’t know about—we would love to let 

members know that, careful now, this is an important form, and 

if you make a mistake on it, you could be subject to these onerous 

penalties that are out there. 

And the amnesty period. Anything that has to do this. Pilots are 

very law-abiding people and, believe me, they don’t want to defraud 

the Government. They don’t want to fly unsafely. 

And I thank you very much for allowing me this time to explain 

what I think would be a great program for the FAA and for AOPA 

to undertake. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Boyer, and recognizes 

the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Obviously, 

much thought and work was put into it; it was a very professional 

job. I think it does remind us all that we are, in our Country, selfgoverning, and that is how the system really works and works best, 

and if it is driven by the people who are involved in these systems, 

they have the best sense of what is working and what is not working, and also incentive to make it as effective, but also as simple 

and user-friendly as possible. I hope you may be in Oshkosh. I 

don’t know if you are going to be there next week or not. Not this 

year? 

Mr. BOYER. Oh, I am there for two different sessions. 

Mr. PETRI. Oh, you are. 

26

Mr. BOYER. Four days total. 

Mr. PETRI. Then you know the manifestation of pride in aviation, 

and in our Country, really, that is there, and it is a unique kind 

of a thing in all kinds of subtle ways. So anything we can do to 

help you and your association as you promote safety and, at the 

same time, attempt to make this an open and accessible process for 

Americans so that they have the freedom to engage in this aspect 

of science and of life, we are eager to work with you on that. Thank 

you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. Boyer, I had just a few questions, and you answered them 

in your presentation, so I have no other questions. As you indicated, we had a prior discussion several weeks ago, and you put together what I think is an action plan that is workable and makes 

sense and is very reasonable. We look forward to working with the 

FAA and other agencies that will be involved in the process to follow up as the process goes forward. 

I do believe there should be a grace period. There are many pilots out there that, as I mentioned earlier, some may have intentionally failed to disclose, but many, many others it is just an omission on their part that they forget to put on the form. So I believe 

there should be a grace period, and I think a one-year grace period, 

as AOPA is proposing, is reasonable. 

So we thank you for your testimony. We thank you for your always being proactive, and that concludes this hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

27


36735.146
28


36735.147
29


36735.148
30


36735.022
31


36735.023
32


36735.024
33


36735.025
34


36735.026
35


36735.027
36


36735.028
37


36735.029
38


36735.030
39


36735.031
40


36735.032
41


36735.033
42


36735.034
43


36735.035
44


36735.036
45


36735.037
46


36735.038
47


36735.039
48


36735.040
49


36735.041
50


36735.042
51


36735.043
52


36735.044
53


36735.045
54


36735.046
55


36735.047
56


36735.048
57


36735.049
58


36735.145
59


36735.050
60


36735.051
61


36735.052
62


36735.053
63


36735.054
64


36735.055
65


36735.056
66


36735.057
67


36735.058
68


36735.059
69


36735.060
70


36735.061
71


36735.062
72


36735.063
73


36735.064
74


36735.065
75


36735.066
76


36735.067
77


36735.068
78


36735.069
79


36735.070
80


36735.071
81


36735.072
82


36735.073
83


36735.074
84


36735.075
85


36735.076
86


36735.077
87


36735.078
88


36735.079
89


36735.080
90


36735.081
91


36735.082
92


36735.083
93


36735.084
94


36735.085
95


36735.086
96


36735.087
97


36735.088
98


36735.089
99


36735.090
100


36735.091
101


36735.092
102


36735.093
103


36735.094
104


36735.095
105


36735.096
106


36735.097
107


36735.098
108


36735.099
109


36735.100
110


36735.101
111


36735.102
112


36735.103
113


36735.104
114


36735.105
115


36735.106
116


36735.107
117


36735.108
118


36735.109
119


36735.110
120


36735.111
121


36735.112
122


36735.113
123


36735.114
124


36735.115
125


36735.116
126


36735.117
127


36735.118
128


36735.119
129


36735.120
130


36735.121
131


36735.122
132


36735.123
133


36735.124
134


36735.125
135


36735.126
136


36735.127
137


36735.128
138


36735.129
139


36735.130
140


36735.131
141


36735.132
142


36735.133
143


36735.134
144


36735.135
145


36735.136
146


36735.137
147


36735.138
148


36735.139
149


36735.140
150


36735.141
151


36735.142
152


36735.143
153

Æ


36735.144