AFS-10-182-E 

 

 Exemption No. 10090 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

CARL E. WISCHMEYER Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0179

 

for an exemption from § 61.23(a)(3)(i) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter posted to the docket on March 3, 2010, Mr. Carl Edward Wischmeyer 

petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from § 61.23(a)(3)(i) 

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, 

would permit Mr. Wischmeyer to fly an AirCam experimental aircraft without a medical 

certificate, instead using only a valid driver’s license. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 61.23(a)(3)(i) prescribes, in pertinent part, that a person must hold at least a 

third-class medical certificate when exercising the privileges of a private pilot. 

The petitioner supports his request with the following information:

The petitioner states that his request is in the public interest because it extends the 

intent of Sport Pilot privileges to the petitioner when flying an AirCam experimental 

aircraft. The kit manufacturer’s specifications for the AirCam aircraft indicate that, 

among other characteristics, it has a gross weight of 1,680 pounds and two engines with 

fixed-pitch props. 

The petitioner states he is experienced in AirCam experimental aircraft and holds 

certificated flight instructor/multi-engine, airline transport pilot/airplane multi-engine 

land, and a current medical certificate. Petitioner seeks to fly the AirCam without an 
2

FAA medical certificate but with a driver’s license, analogous to a sport pilot flying 

without an FAA medical certificate. The petitioner states that his level of experience 

presents a level of safety equivalent to flying aircraft flown by sport pilots. 

The petitioner further requests that this exemption be valid outside the United States as 

there may be occasions to fly AirCams to Canada, Mexico, or the Bahamas. 

 A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on (75 FR 19459). 

No comments were received. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner’s supporting information and finds that a 

grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

The requirement to hold a medical certificate under 14 CFR § 61.23 is dependent on the 

type of operation rather than on the certificate held. For example, if the operation 

requires only a sport pilot certificate, then a pilot may hold either a medical certificate or 

a U.S. driver’s license provided the pilot knows of no reason why he or she would not 

qualify for a third-class medical certificate. However, if the operation requires a private 

pilot certificate, then the pilot must hold at least a third-class medical certificate. 

In developing the light sport rules, the FAA carefully considered those factors that 

would define the privileges and limitations of sport pilots and those engineering factors 

that define light sport aircraft. It was determined that an aircraft with (among other 

factors) a gross weight not greater than 1,320 pounds (1,430 pounds for aircraft intended 

for operation on water), and with not more than a single engine, would be defined as a 

light sport aircraft. These criteria for light sport aircraft are listed in 14 CFR part 1. 

Light sport aircraft can be operated with a sport pilot certificate under § 61.303 and also 

a U.S. driver’s license under § 61.23(c). 

However, the AirCam aircraft that the petitioner wishes to fly does not meet two 14 CFR 

part 1 requirements. It has more than one engine and weighs more than 1,320 pounds. 

Therefore, the AirCam is not a light sport aircraft and its operation requires at least a 

private pilot certificate. 

The petitioner specifically requests that he be exempted from the requirement to hold a 

valid medical certificate when exercising the privileges of a private pilot certificate. The 

petitioner’s rationale is that such an exemption would extend the intent of the sport pilot 

privileges to at least this particular experimental aircraft. However, granting this 

exemption would be redefining what constitutes a light sport aircraft rather than merely 

extending the intent of sport pilot privileges. The FAA has determined it is contrary to 

the public interest to change the firmly established definition of light sport aircraft in the 

context of this petition. The petitioner also fails to demonstrate how this exemption 
3

would maintain a level of safety equivalent to that provided by current regulations 

because his level of aeronautical experience is immaterial to whether he meets the 

medical standards for the operation. Meeting those medical standards required for safe 

operation is evidenced by at least a third-class medical certificate. 

The FAA’s Decision: 

 In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the 

public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Mr. Carl Edward 

Wischmeyer for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.23(a)(3)(i) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on Jun 30 2010. 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service