TO: U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

400 7th Street, S.W., Room PL 401

Washington, D.C. 20591-0001

PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION 

SECTIONS 61.3 and 61.23 TO ALLOW AOPA AND EAA MEMBERS TO CONDUCT 

CERTAIN OPERATIONS OF AIRCRAFT WITHOUT HAVING TO 

HOLD AN FAA-ISSUED MEDICAL CERTIFICATE

 

PETITIONERS: AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION

421 Aviation Way

Frederick, MD 21701

EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION

3000 Poberezny Road

Oshkosh, WI 54902
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 2 of 41

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page #

PETITION FOR EXEMPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

INTEREST OF THE PETITIONERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

A. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

B. The Experimental Aircraft Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

SUPPORT FOR THE PETITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A. This petition for exemption provides for a greater level of safety . . . . . . . 8

- Education and conscious medical self-assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

- Reasonable operating limitations and restrictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

- Familiarity in aircraft and operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

B. Equivalent level of safety is demonstrated by history. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

C. This petition for exemption does not adversely affect safety . . . . . . . . . . . 14

D. Prompt action on this petition for exemption is warranted to avoid adverse 

effects on aviation safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

E. The public interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

F. Estimated impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION AND PUBLIC MEETINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Appendix A. Proposed aircraft and operating limitations under a driver’s license / 

self-assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

20

Appendix B. Medical educational course description and outline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Appendix C. Historical listing of efforts to relieve overly burdensome and 

unnecessary medical certification requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Appendix D. Economic analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Appendix E. General Aviation Manufacturer Association letter with estimated 

number of affected aircraft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 3 of 41

PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the Experimental Aircraft 

Association (EAA) seek an exemption from Sections 61.3(c) and 61.23(a) of 14 C.F.R. to allow 

its members flying recreationally - according to certain operational limitations and restrictions -

to fly without having to hold an FAA-issued medical certificate of any class. The terms of the 

exemption would provide an equivalent level of safety to that currently provided by existing 

regulation - similar to a segment of the pilot population who has already demonstrated the ability 

to safely operate aircraft without holding an FAA issued medical certificate. Moreover, the 

terms requested may result in a higher level of safety by imposing an ongoing aeromedical 

educational component - which does not presently exist - to help a pilot better assess his or her 

medical qualifications to safely operate certain lower performance aircraft in specified 

environments and conditions. 

On behalf of their members, for which they have standing to submit this request, AOPA 

and EAA seeks relief for their members specifically from the following regulatory requirements:

14 C.F.R. §61.3(c), Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

(c) Medical certificate. (1) A person may serve as a required pilot flight 

crewmember of an aircraft only if that person holds the appropriate medical certificate 

issued under Part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that 

is in that person’s physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft. ...

and

14 C.F.R. §61.23, Medical certificates: Requirement and duration.

(a) Operations requiring a medical certificate. Except as provided in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a person:

... 

(3) Must hold at least a third-class medical certificate ...

Currently, pilots who operate aircraft in the environments specified in this petition would 

be required by these regulations to hold at least a third-class medical certificate and to reapply 

for that certificate every two years if more than 40 years of age or every five years if under 40 

years of age. In seeking this relief, AOPA and EAA members, operating in accordance with this 

request for exemption, would be able to act as pilot in command of an aircraft without the 

necessity of applying for an FAA medical certificate, but only after having completed an

aeromedical education course within the previous 24 calendar months and only after being able 

to consciously assess prior to each flight that he or she does not have a medical condition that 
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 4 of 41

would make him or her unable to operate an aircraft in a safe manner.

1

 A course completion 

certificate would have to be carried in the pilot’s personal possession or readily accessible in the 

aircraft during each flight conducted under this exemption. Further, members would be 

restricted in their operations to single-engine fixed-gear aircraft with no more than four seats and 

180 horsepower that are not being operated for compensation or hire or in furtherance of a 

business, and those operations may only be made during the day, in visual meteorological 

conditions, below 10,000 feet msl (or 2,000 feet agl, whichever is higher), with no more than one 

passenger. 

The educational program required in this request will be offered at no charge on the 

AOPA Foundation’s Air Safety Institute’s website. The program will follow the basic design 

and functionality of existing online courses, incorporating interactivity to keep users engaged, 

broken up into modules or chapters with train-to-proficiency quizzes in the program. This

education and outreach effort has unique value because it will educate the pilot community when 

such education is currently lacking, and also provide data to validate the effectiveness of the 

exemption. The education program also supports the FAA’s “Transforming General Aviation

Five-Year Strategy,” which calls for a strategic approach to mitigating risk in general aviation.

The timing of this petition meets the FAA’s objective (that consideration of the exercise 

of any pilot privileges - without the need for a medical certificate) can be made after experience 

with the Sport Pilot could be reviewed.2 It has been seven years since the Sport Pilot rule went 

into effect, and the data gathered from that segment of the flying population strongly supports the 

terms of this requested exemption.

AOPA and EAA are petitioning for the terms, restrictions, and limitations in Appendix A 

of this document and are summarized below:

 

1

AOPA and EAA may only legally represent the interest of their members, however we would not be opposed if 

the FAA were to grant a similar exemption to other petitioners who are not members of either organization.

2

See appendix C for full request history and summaries of FAA responses.
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 5 of 41

PILOT-IN-COMAND AIRCRAFT OPERATION

- Holds valid pilot certificate or 

is training/applying for a pilot 

certificate

- Meets currency and/or 

endorsement requirements

- Has satisfied the aeromedical 

course requirements within the 

preceding 24 calendar months

- Holds a valid state driver’s 

license

- Pays at least pro rata share of 

aircraft expenses

- Carries pilot/student certificate, 

driver’s license, and aeromedical 

course certification

- Self-assesses medical ability to 

safely operate aircraft

- Single-engine

- Fixed gear

- No more than four seats

- No more than 180 horsepower

- Day

- Under VFR and in VMC, but in 

no case with less than three 

statute miles visibility

- No more than one passenger

- Below 10,000 feet MSL (or 

2,000 feet AGL, whichever is 

higher)

- With visual reference to the 

surface at all times

- Not for compensation or hire

- Not in furtherance of a business

- Not on a demonstration flight

- No towing any object

- Within the United States, unless 

authorized in the country where 

the flight is conducted

AOPA and EAA maintain that granting this petition - according to the limitations and 

restrictions requested - would not adversely affect safety and would provide for at least an 

equivalent level of safety as that provided by the rules from which exemption is sought. In 

particular, operating in accordance with this request for exemption would allow pilots to 

continue operating aircraft that they are familiar and experienced with and would allow for 

greater assurance that pilots are currently aware of their personal medical information. The 

granting of this petition for exemption is in the public’s interest. It will foster the health of the 

aviation industry through preventing unnecessary medical barriers to learning to fly or to 

continuing to fly. 

INTEREST OF THE PETITIONERS

This petition for exemption is being made on behalf of the members of AOPA and EAA. 

AOPA represents almost 400,000 members and EAA represents approximately 176,000 

members. Together, these two associations represent the interests of approximately 70 percent
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 6 of 41

of the pilots holding active FAA-issued airman certificates3. AOPA and EAA members 

represent the segment of aviation that is known as general aviation, accounting for nearly

25,000,000 hours flown annually in the United States.4 AOPA and EAA are dedicated to 

preserving an individual’s freedom to fly, supporting a safe and efficient aviation industry, and 

promoting general aviation. 

General aviation is an integral and vital part of the global transportation system, 

providing services and fulfilling needs that are essential to the nation’s economy and a 

community’s needs. The impact of general aviation is direct and indirect, and it serves to affect 

the nation and the local communities economically and socially. In particular, general aviation 

contributes more than $150 billion to the U.S. economy annually and employs more than 1.2 

million people. 

Maintaining a vital general aviation sector in the United States is of critical importance to 

the public, providing economic benefits and access to small communities throughout the country 

in times of need. There are 5,261 public-use airports that can be directly accessed by general 

aviation. That is more than 10 times the number of airports served by scheduled airlines. These 

public use airports are the only available option for fast, reliable, flexible air transportation to 

small and rural communities in every corner of the country, providing jobs, serving as a lifeline 

for small to mid-size businesses, and providing critical services to remote cities and towns in 

time of natural disaster or crisis. 

The United States has relied on civil aviation to assist in times of national need since

World War II. In times of war or national disaster, general aviation is called upon to offer 

support where ground transportation is unavailable or untimely. General aviation pilots, aircraft,

and facilities are often included in individual state disaster preparedness planning. The Civil Air 

Patrol (CAP) and other organizations such as the Air Care Alliance, EVAC (emergency 

volunteer air corps), and Corporate Aircraft Responding in Emergencies (CARE), offer 

lifesaving services through search-and-rescue missions or transporting individuals for medical 

treatments. These organizations also offer support often coordinated through FEMA during 

national or local disasters.

Besides offering critical support in times of need, general aviation provides a multitude of 

services to the public including agricultural services and spraying to control mosquitos or other 

pests that pose a health threat, law enforcement, medical transportation, border control, and 

search-and-rescue missions. Operations in all segments of general aviation are impacted when 

general aviation activity declines in any one area. Simple supply-and-demand economics dictate 

 

3

2010 FAA Airmen Statistics indicate that there are 627,588 active airmen in the U.S.

4

FAA General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Surveys - CY 2010
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 7 of 41

that if operations decrease in any segment, overall costs increase and the ability to maintain local 

airfields is compromised. Conversely, if we can maintain or grow the interest and use of general 

aviation, we maintain the economic advantages and public services offered on a national and 

local level.

As an example of the impact that general aviation contributes on an individual state level, 

California has 257 public-use airports, 219 of which are general aviation airports. These airports 

are home to 64,529 pilots and 37,128 general aviation aircraft. General aviation accounts for 80 

percent of aircraft operations statewide. California leads the nation in terms of the economic 

impact of general aviation, generating $18.2 billion and equaling $529 per capita. 

In the state of New York, there are 148 airports that support 17,449 pilots and 8,973 

general aviation aircraft. The economic impact of general aviation in New York is $9.27 billion 

or $508 per capita. According to statistics provided by the state of New York’s government, 

total associated and imputed impact is $35.4 billion.5

Maintaining the overall strength and activity of general aviation is in the public’s best 

interest.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

AOPA is a nationwide, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to issues involving 

general aviation. AOPA was formed in 1939 and now represents the interests of almost 400,000 

aircraft owners and pilots from every state. AOPA’s membership, history, mission, and 

activities, are described in detail at www.aopa.org. 

Experimental Aircraft Association

EAA is an international non-profit membership association dedicated to preserving and 

promoting personal and recreational aviation of all kinds. EAA was founded in 1953 and now 

represents 176,000 pilots and aviation enthusiasts. EAA’s membership, history, and activities, 

including its annual convention EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, are described in detail at 

www.eaa.org and www.airventure.org. 

 

5

Alliance for Aviation Across America
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 8 of 41

SUPPORT FOR THE PETITION

This petition for exemption provides for a greater level of safety.

Granting this petition would provide an equivalent level of safety and, in practice, stands 

to provide a greater level of safety. This petition for exemption requires initial and recurrent 

education on aeromedical factors exceeding those presently mandated by the FAA and requires 

an operating limitation linked to state-issued driver’s license standards and a self-assessment 

standard. It also helps to mitigate the increased risk that may occur naturally when pilots 

transition into unfamiliar and sometimes distinctly different aircraft in order to avoid the 

sometimes cumbersome and overly conservative FAA medical testing requirements.6 This 

petition gives those pilots an alternative that may allow them to continue to fly and to do so in 

aircraft in which they have familiarity and experience. 

Education and conscious medical self-assessment

This petition requires completion of a biennial educational course on medical factors 

specific to aviation in addition to the day-to-day lives of all individuals. The course would be 

offered for free to all online. Currently, any education regarding medical factors required by the 

FAA is limited to physiological factors, and the training is largely only required in the primary 

training environment; i.e., when a pilot first learns to fly. This request includes a currency 

requirement for aeromedical education that extends beyond flight physiology and includes 

medical concerns commensurate with the issues that may be reviewed in the medical application 

process.

AOPA and EAA bring unique resources to bear in developing and administering of such 

a course through their ability to work with the AOPA Foundation’s Air Safety Institute. Also a

breadth of aeromedical professionals will advise in the development of an online education 

program that would expand and reinforce a pilot’s understanding of aeromedical factors, 

including the warning signs of serious medical conditions; the effects of prescription and overthe-counter medications; dietary/herbal supplements and associated possible side effects and the 

FAA’s medical standards as currently applied. 

The Air Safety Institute provides a well-respected organizational basis and culture to 

effectively educate pilots on the medical subjects affecting their decisions to fly. For more than

60 years, the AOPA Foundation’s Air Safety Institute (formerly the AOPA Air Safety 

 

6

For the most part, the experience of AOPA and EAA is that the vast majority of pilots who apply for medical 

certificates are eventually granted one, i.e., found by the FAA to be able to safely pilot an aircraft from a medical 

viewpoint. But often this certification occurs only after tremendous cost of time and resources that are 

unnecessary for the recreational operations contemplated by the pilot.
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 9 of 41

Foundation) has developed programs in pilot safety and training, and these courses are readily 

available on the Internet and in person throughout the United States, free of charge and to any 

person wishing to access them. The Air Safety Institute is the nation’s largest non-profit 

organization dedicated exclusively to providing aviation education and safety programs for 

general aviation. In 2010, the Air Safety Institute reached the pilot community more than 1.9 

million times with its safety education programs. For more information on the Air Safety 

Institute’s mission, safety information database, online training materials and courses, and 

nationwide seminars, please visit www.aopa.org/asf/.

In addition, there is valuable and significant experience that can be drawn from EAA’s 

education and mentoring programs designed to enhance safety, such as the Flight Advisor and 

technical counselor programs for amateur-built safety and the traveling Sport Air Workshops that 

bring hands-on experience to builders and prospective builders of amateur built aircraft. EAA

also delivers significant safety information to the pilot community through its network of 900 

chapters.

Furthermore, AOPA and EAA may draw on the resources and knowledge of AOPA’s 

Board of Aviation Medical Advisors (BAMA), AOPA’s Aviation Technical and Medical 

Certification specialists, EAA’s Aeromedical Advisory Council, and EAA’s Information 

Services Department. The associations receive ongoing medical counsel and expert advice on 

aeromedical factors from AOPA’s BAMA and EAA’s Aeromedical Advisory Council, regarding 

important general aviation medical certification issues and they assist the associations in 

advocating for sound regulatory medical certification policy. These medical boards are made up 

of physicians representing multiple medical disciplines and include several FAA-designated 

aviation medical examiners (AME) and members of both the Aerospace Medical Association and 

the Civil Aviation Medical Association. These boards offer advice and counsel to the 

associations’ medical certification staff on individual member cases, provide medical 

consultation and advisory services to members, and represent the organizations at their 

respective annual conventions. The AOPA Aviation Summit and EAA AirVenture Oshkosh are 

venues that provide a rich environment for exchange of ideas regarding medical certification 

policy, special issuance, certification processing, and many other medical issues important to 

pilots. 

AOPA and EAA have a staff of medical certification specialists who have more than 45 

years of combined experience in assisting pilots and who work closely with the FAA to provide 

accurate and up-to-date information regarding FAA medical certification policies and 

procedures. The AOPA website is regarded as one of the most comprehensive sources for 

information about the medical certification process. The website includes detailed guidelines for 

many specific medical conditions, a database of medications that are allowed for use by pilots, 

and an interactive medical application planning tool to assist pilots in accurately completing an 
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 10 of 41

application for airman medical certification. EAA information services personnel answer 

questions, develop and provide information kits, and guide members to an AME with the most 

appropriate expertise for a given case. 

The aeromedical education program that will be developed is intended to greatly enhance 

a pilot’s understanding of medical considerations related to aviation safety and make pilots better 

prepared to evaluate their medical fitness for flight. Moreover, the course material would not be 

stagnant; rather, while always covering the core aeromedical issues, the program can be designed 

to include developing medical concerns in the aviation community and other current medical 

matters relevant to a pilot’s need to determine his or her ability to safely operate an aircraft. The 

course would also review the pilot’s legal responsibilities while operating in accordance with this 

exemption. The resulting improved knowledge and understanding of aeromedical factors and 

decision making tools provided through the course would give pilots the resources to best 

evaluate their fitness to fly. This would provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than the 

FAA’s current practice (periodic medical examinations and no ongoing aeromedical education).

7

In making a conscious preflight decision about medical fitness to operate an aircraft in 

accordance with this exemption, the pilot is expected to be able to represent in good faith prior to 

each flight that, after having been educated on medical issues that pertain to flight within the 

preceding 24 months, that the airman does not know and does not have a reason to know of any 

medical condition that would make that airman unable to operate an aircraft in a safe manner. 

Meaningful self-assessment, beyond that which is presently required in the regulations, is a key 

component in this petition for exemption. Pilots participating in this exemption are required to 

consciously conduct a self-evaluation and make a decision about their health prior to any flight.

Reasonable operating limitations and restrictions

Operational limitations and restrictions for pilots utilizing this requested exemption 

expand upon the proven and successful medical safety standards of the Sport Pilot certificate,

which currently utilizes the driver’s license medical standard in lieu of an FAA medical 

certificate. The AOPA/EAA-requested exemption would include limitations on the type of 

aircraft allowed to be flown under this exemption (single engine, 180 horsepower, fixed gear...) 

as well as the permitted operations (day, VMC, one passenger...). 

 

7

Nothing in this petition for exemption is intended to interfere with or replace a pilot’s responsibility to comply 

with FAR 61.53 that prohibits acting as a required flight crewmember, when a medical certificate is not required, 

with a medical condition that the person knows or has reason to know would make that person unable to operate 

the aircraft in a safe manner. 
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 11 of 41

Familiarity in aircraft and operations

Incentivizing pilots to continue to operate aircraft they are familiar with reduces the 

safety implications inherent in transitioning from one type or category of aircraft to another. 

Under this requested exemption, more pilots would be able to continue to fly in aircraft with 

which they are most familiar. Currently, regulations prohibit these aircraft from being flown by 

a pilot who does not wish to obtain a valid medical certificate. Therefore, those pilots with 

qualifying aircraft under this requested exemption would have the choice to continue flying their 

aircraft instead of transitioning to a new, unfamiliar aircraft and the risks associated with doing 

so. The vast majority of aircraft that fall within the limitations of this exemption are aircraft in 

which most pilots were originally trained and certificated in, thus capitalizing on the law of 

primacy and minimizing risk. Furthermore, requiring pilots to fly in favorable weather 

conditions, during the day, and under other propitious circumstances contribute to the assurance 

of safe flight.

Equivalent level of safety is demonstrated in history

This petition for exemption is backed by sound statistical data that demonstrates an 

equivalent level of safety regarding aeromedical factors between those operations that currently 

require a medical certificate and those operations that do not currently require a medical 

certificate. There is an extremely low incidence of medically related accidents across both 

factions, supporting the conclusion that a medical certificate may not always ensure a lower 

incidence of medically related aviation accidents. 

An FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) reviewed accident 

summary data from 1986 through 1992 to determine the prevalence of medical causal factors in 

aviation accidents.8 The findings of the ARAC concluded that the percentage of aviation 

accidents involving medical causal factors is actually lower for those activities that do not 

require medical certificates than for those activities that do. During the seven-year timeframe 

studied, the ARAC found 761 accidents in lighter-than-air aircraft and gliders – operations that 

do not require airman medical certification. Only one of the 761 accidents (0.13 percent) 

showed a medical cause. For general aviation operations requiring airman medical certification, 

there were 46,976 total accidents. Slightly more than 0.2 percent (99 total accidents) showed a 

medical cause. It is important to note that none of these accidents were prevented by the 

existence of third-class medical screening standards and the medical certification process.

In 2005, the AOPA Air Safety Foundation (now the Air Safety Institute) examined 

16,030 general aviation accidents in fixed-wing aircraft under 12,500 pounds that occurred from 

 

8

Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 67 

Fed. Reg. 5367, 5375 (Feb. 5, 2002). 
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 12 of 41

1995 to 2004. The review showed that only 24 accidents (0.15 percent) were attributable to 

medical incapacitation of a pilot who was properly certificated and operating the airplane in 

accordance with the regulations. Of these medical incapacitation accidents, only six (less than 

0.04 percent) were caused by a properly certificated pilot while operating an airplane in a manner 

that meets the aircraft and operational limits set forth in this petition. These pilots held FAAissued medical certificates, yet none of these six accidents were prevented by the third-class 

medical screening standards. The risk to aviation safety by removing the third-class medical 

requirement for this segment of the recreational aviation community would be negligible, and 

indeed, AOPA and EAA maintain that safety would be improved by enhancing the knowledge 

and awareness of the pilot community regarding aeromedical factors.

Since the Sport Pilot rule became effective in 2004, there is no evidence that the driver’s 

license medical standard has contributed to an increase in the accident rate because of

aeromedical factors - quite the contrary. The AOPA Foundation’s Air Safety Institute recently 

conducted a study of Light-Sport aircraft (LSA) accidents that showed that no Light-Sport 

aircraft accidents had occurred as a result of pilot incapacitation because of medical deficiencies 

at the time of the study. There have been a total of 134 accidents in S-LSAs between 2006 and 

2010, 16 of which were fatal. The vast majority of the pilots involved in these accidents (78 

percent) held a private or higher certificate and 50 percent of all the LSA accidents were 

classified by the NTSB as instructional or transition flights. These statistics lend credence to the 

theory that pilots transitioning from traditional general aviation aircraft to LSAs are experiencing 

more accidents because of lack of familiarity with the newer aircraft. Giving pilots an option to 

continue flying aircraft with which they are most familiar without having to deal with the 

unnecessary hassle and cost associated with the third-class medical certificate application 

process, may reduce the accidents associated with transitioning to an unfamiliar aircraft. 

The safety statistics of glider, balloon, and Sport Pilot operations offer empirical evidence 

that serves as an informal clinical trial for medical self-assessment. Similarly, the data gathered 

from operations conducted under this exemption, if granted, would provide valuable information 

and data relevant to the safety experience of this exemption and future considerations by the 

FAA regarding medical certification requirements. 

The FAA captures the number of “active airmen” based on the FAA medical application 

process, but “inactive airmen” data is lost including those pilots not required to hold a medical 

certificate. Therefore, statistics related to the number of pilots actively operating under the Sport 

Pilot, balloon, or glider categories are not entirely accurate. In 2010, FAA U.S. Civil Airmen 

Statistics indicated that there were 3,682 active Sport Pilots and 21,275 glider-only pilots; 

however, the numbers of “active airmen” may only be ascertained for those who also had a valid 

medical certificate on file with the FAA. The education program required by this exemption 

could be used to capture statistics about active airmen using the exemption that would otherwise 
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 13 of 41

be unavailable to the FAA because of the absence of a medical certificate. Further, this data 

could be used to validate the effectiveness of this exemption and potentially justify permanent 

regulatory expansion of medical self-assessment.

The FAA often relies on historical experience and statistical support to justify any change 

in or exemption from existing regulations to ensure that an equivalent level of safety is 

maintained. It is for that reason that the FAA often enacts incremental and informed 

modifications rather than a sweeping overhaul to existing rules. Relevant, qualified experience 

and data support the FAA’s approach to exempting (and eventually changing) the regulatory 

requirements as requested in this petition.

Examples of measured changes include the FAA’s 2010 policy revision to allow special 

issuance medical certification for pilots using selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) 

antidepressant medications.9 The decision was made after the FAA conducted a multi-year 

evaluation and lengthy debate among civil aviation medical certification specialists and the FAA. 

In its policy statement, the FAA stated, “The FAA, however, has long considered the use of a 

psychotropic medication for treatment of depression as a basis to deny a special-issuance 

medical certificate. ... Upon careful review and reconsideration, the FAA is modifying its longstanding, special-issuance practice.” Part of the rationale for its change in policy was a May

2004 report10 where it was determined that pilots would rather risk not taking prescribed 

antidepressant medication than be grounded. The FAA determined that “[s]cenarios involving 

individuals who might risk flying while taking an antidepressant without medical oversight, or 

flying without taking an antidepressant when they need to be, are unacceptable.”11 In this action 

to allow use of SSRI medications, the FAA acknowledged the potential safety enhancement of 

encouraging pilots who need medical treatment to seek such treatment without fear that they will 

be grounded.

There are also examples of FAA exceptions to regulations that have subsequently become 

law; i.e., where the FAA has promulgated a rule change to codify an existing, proven exemption. 

Examples include the exemption from drug testing for charitable sightseeing flights and the 

exemption allowing a flight instructor to provide instruction in an airplane that is equipped with 

a single, functioning throw-over control wheel in place of fixed, dual controls.

12

 

 

9

See Special Issuance of Airman Medical Certificates to Applicants Being Treated with Certain Antidepressant 

Medications, 75 Fed. Reg. 17047 (Apr. 5, 2010). 

10 Journal of Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine (Vol. 75, No. 5) entitled “Aeromedical Regulation of 

Aviators Using Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors for Depressive Disorders.”

11 75 Fed. Reg. 17047, 17049.

12 14 C.F.R. § 91.146(b) and § 91.109.
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 14 of 41

AOPA and EAA have petitioned to expand a driver’s license medical standard to pilots 

flying recreationally numerous times in the past 25 years. These petitions addressed natural 

advancements in medical knowledge and experience, the evolution of an aging but healthy pilot 

population, greater access to information, and increased awareness.13 Our members have 

continued to voice their strong support for this type of request. In a 2009 AOPA member poll, 

72 percent of respondents indicated they are in favor of entirely eliminating the third class 

medical certificate for pilots flying for recreational purposes. Similar surveys by EAA indicate 

that reducing barriers to airmen medical certification should be a top priority of the 

organization’s advocacy efforts. Yet, every previous effort to expand this standard has been 

denied or disregarded by the FAA. However, in the FAA’s most recent denials of AOPA and 

EAA petitions, the FAA acknowledged that these requests and the FAA’s Sport Pilot proposal 

addressed similar issues, but said that the petitions were “premature.” Importantly, the FAA also 

stated that it wanted to evaluate the operations of Sport Pilots using a valid driver’s license in 

lieu of a medical certificate before extending the option to other recreational aviation privileges. 

Sufficient evidence now exists to grant our request for exemption from the requirement of the 3rd

class medical for pilots flying recreationally. Seven years of exemplary medical safety record 

for Sport Pilots and pilots operating under the privileges of a Sport Pilot certificate, combined 

with other statistically relevant data, justifies exempting additional recreational aviation activities 

from the requirement for a medical certificate. This is especially true when airmen are further 

educated and better able to assess their medical fitness to fly than currently able today.

This petition for exemption does not adversely affect safety

Granting this petition for exemption would not adversely affect safety. Currently, several 

segments of the pilot population are permitted to operate aircraft without holding an FAA-issued 

medical certificate of any class. Historically, pilots flying gliders and balloons have not been 

obligated to hold medical certificates, but must determine their medical fitness prior to flight.14

Most recently, in 2004, the FAA promulgated the Sport Pilot rule, which allows all pilots to 

exercise the privileges of the Sport Pilot certificate without a FAA medical certificate.15 In the 

Sport Pilot rulemaking process, the FAA emphasized a pilot’s responsibility to exercise prudent 

judgment regarding his medical fitness to fly. “The FAA cannot overemphasize the crucial 

responsibility placed on those exercising Sport Pilot privileges to carefully consider fitness to fly 

before every flight... no level of airman medical certification will ever alleviate this 

 

13 For a description of the relevant exemption requests, please see Appendix C.

14 See 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.3(c)(2) and 61.53(b).

15 See 14 C.F.R. § 61.3(c)(2)(v); Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft, Final 

Rule, 69 Fed. Reg. 44772, 44815 (July 27, 2004).
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 15 of 41

responsibility.”16 The FAA acknowledged that such allowances may not adversely affect 

aviation safety and that the experience gained from the Sport Pilot rule can serve as validation to 

expand the concept to other pilot privileges.17 Seven years later, there have been no NTSB 

accident reports in Sport Pilot operations that list medical incapacitation as a causal factor. There 

has been no adverse safety experience or degradation of safety related to the absence of a 

medical certificate requirement, thus supporting this petition to expand these privileges to the 

next level of aircraft and operations.18

Prompt action on this petition is warranted to avoid adverse effects on aviation safety

AOPA and EAA members have voiced concerns about seeking professional medical care 

because of fears that they may be saddled with case histories - right or wrong - that jeopardize

their medical qualifications or severely complicate their ability to satisfy the FAA inquiries into 

their medical status. Having this requested exemption available as an option for those pilots 

would encourage them to be more mindful of their health, including practicing preventative 

medicine or choosing to investigate signs or symptoms of a developing medical condition with 

their physician, whether or not the issue would, in fact, affect a review of their medical 

certificate qualifications. These are the real-life developments that are not always caught during 

an FAA medical examination. However, they may be detected and addressed during routine 

visits to health professionals, which are to be encouraged not discouraged, by the system that 

gives these pilots privileges to fly. Under this petition for exemption, pilots could have 

symptoms checked and gain a better understanding of how the symptoms could adversely affect 

safety of flight. Having such knowledge to determine fitness for flight would thereby enhance 

safety. 

As with many aging Americans who have been less focused on maintaining a healthy 

lifestyle, members who face a first-time special issuance are often challenged with poor 

nutritional habits, no regular exercise, and are often unaware of the consequences their high-risk 

medical conditions may have on their overall health and often unaware that a medical condition 

could be lurking that could affect their safe operation of an aircraft even though they otherwise 

feel fine. However, pilots are wary of seeking any medical advice, even as a precaution, because 

of the perceived automatic negative effect it will have on their next medical application review.

When a diagnosis of a serious medical condition is made, the pilot is no longer eligible for an 

unrestricted FAA medical certificate. AOPA’s medical certification specialists receive 

 

16 69 Fed. Reg. 44772, 44816. 

17 69 Fed. Reg. 44772, 44818.

18 www.ntsb.gov/accidentquery/index/aspx.
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 16 of 41

approximately 100 calls per week from members with various cardiac conditions requesting 

assistance navigating the arduous process associated with special issuance requests. 

Once corrective action is taken to manage the condition, either through diet, medication, 

lifestyle change, more aggressive intervention, or a combination of steps, these individuals often 

become better motivated to maintain their health and may end up healthier than before the 

original diagnosis was made. Ironically, it is most often after the pilots have received diagnosis 

and treatment for the condition and have modified their lifestyles that they can no longer obtain 

an unrestricted medical certificate through their FAA-designated AME. These pilots must 

continuously prove their health through the FAA’s discretionary special issuance process. The 

process usually requires additional testing, which can be expensive and time consuming and 

proceeds at a pace that the FAA controls.

The aeromedical education course required in this petition delves into signs and 

symptoms that indicate a deterioration of pilot-related skills expected with diagnosis of specific 

medical conditions, something that the FAA does not currently offer. The personal assessment 

required for deciding present medical fitness for flight is a timelier and more accurate predictor 

of pilot performance for a given flight than the multi-year FAA medical evaluation or special 

issuance authorization. Conscious and educated individual medical assessments are crucial for 

pilots with underlying medical conditions. The medical education course required by this 

exemption would give pilots the currently unavailable education they need to conduct a more 

accurate assessment of their fitness to fly.

The Public Interest

The public has a strong and substantial interest in maintaining, developing, and 

improving the aviation industry and in supporting the FAA’s statutory duties of, among other 

things, maintaining and enhancing safety, regulating in a way that best promotes safety, 

developing and encouraging aeronautics, and preserving the public right of freedom of transit 

through the navigable airspace. This petition for exemption is in the public interest because it 

would establish an efficient process for pilots to continue to fly in a safe manner without having 

to endure the undue and unnecessary burden of a regulatory medical process.

The regulations from which exemption is sought require that each pilot must obtain a 

medical certificate to fly in almost all facets of aviation, including recreational or personal 

transportation flying. However, oftentimes, there is a practical barrier created by these 

regulations that prevent the general aviation pilot from continuing to fly small aircraft for 

recreational purposes. In most instances, that barrier to medical certification can be overcome,

but the cost, time, and hassle of obtaining a third-class medical certificate is too much for the 

recreational pilot to invest. In these circumstances, many pilots will either decide either to stop 

flying or transition to unfamiliar aircraft where the regulatory medical certificate barrier doesn’t 
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 17 of 41

exist. This consequence conflicts with the public interest. Pilots need to remain engaged in 

aviation and be allowed to operate aircraft in which they are familiar and experienced.

Moreover, the current regulatory structure provides for pilots to be educated about some 

aeromedical factors during their initial flight training but recurrent education in these areas is not 

presently required. Pilots are currently motivated by their own safety to fly healthy and their 

understanding of the requirement to refrain from flying with a known medical condition. 

However, it is in the public interest to give pilots ongoing access to up-to-date, relevant, and 

practical information regarding healthy flying as they progress well beyond the information 

provided during initial flight training. And, it is in the public interest to give the pilot an 

objective reason to access this information and keep it a part of their flying.

The general aviation industry depends on the participation of pilots, mechanics, flight 

instructors, aircraft builders, and other individuals who support flight activities. Of no small 

import to the health of general aviation are those pilots who fly strictly for recreational or hobby 

purposes. These pilots contribute to the financial stability of a system of airports, manufacturers, 

and companies that deliver necessary economic resources to communities nationwide. It is in the 

public interest to keeping these pilots safely flying to support the strength and longevity of 

general aviation, a segment of the aviation industry that meets the needs of communities and 

contributes to the quality and efficiency of commercial aviation. 

The public interest supports this petition for exemption. Pilots who remain aeromedically 

safe to operate in accordance with the conditions set forth in this petition should continue to do 

so without - a regulatory system that at times unfairly and - unnecessarily excludes recreational 

aviators because of the cost and time associated with obtaining medical certification. 

This petition also meets President Barack Obama’s call for eliminating unnecessary 

regulatory requirements and reducing federal spending. The pilots who exercise the privileges 

provided by this petition would benefit from improved regulation, and the public may benefit 

from appropriate cuts in federal spending enforcing regulations that do not add materially to the 

safety of the aviation system. Approving of this exemption could reduce government spending 

by an estimated $11,530,910 over 10 years.

In short, the public interest is served by increasing safety through education, maintaining 

and strengthening the economic wellbeing of general aviation, reducing government spending, 

potentially reducing a number of aircraft transition-related accidents, and giving the FAA 

necessary data to maintain the safety of individuals operating aircraft in our nation’s airspace. 
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 18 of 41

Estimated impact

AOPA and EAA estimate that this petition for exemption would likely affect 39,12019

pilots annually and between 86,664 and 114,33320 single-engine piston airplanes. This 

represents approximately 6.2 percent of the pilots eligible to fly in the United States21 and 37.4 to

49.3 percent of the airworthy aircraft in the United States22. This petition for exemption would

reduce the unduly burdensome and needless barriers for this population of pilots who may safely 

operate a greater number of available aircraft.

This proposal would result in substantial economic savings for pilots and the federal 

government. Utilizing formulas, assumptions, and figures developed for the economic analysis 

of the FAA modification of certain medical duration standards in 2007, we have calculated that 

this proposal would generate savings of $241,929,900 to pilots over 10 years and savings to the 

federal government of more than $11,530,910 over the same period. For full economic impact, 

including assumptions and calculations see Appendix D. As a consequence of pilots operating 

aircraft in accordance with this petition for exemption, individual pilots would be able to 

conserve resources and continue to positively contribute to aviation. Meanwhile, the federal 

government would have eased unnecessary regulation and reduced needless spending.

REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION AND PUBLIC MEETINGS

AOPA and EAA request that a summary of this petition for exemption be published in 

the federal register for comment and that the FAA hold public meetings on the petition for 

exemption so that the FAA may be fully and fairly informed regarding the appropriateness of 

this petition and so that a dialog concerning the petition may be shared between industry and the 

FAA prior to any substantive decision be made.

CONCLUSION

AOPA and EAA submit this petition for exemption request as rational and warranted by 

objective and relevant statistics, as well as practical considerations supporting aviation safety. It 

is consistent with the FAA’s trend in relaxing medical certificate requirements for other similar 

 

19 Appendix D contains the economic analysis and assumptions used to obtain these estimates. Estimated number 

of third-class medical applicants that would participate plus the estimated number of special issuance applicants 

that would participate.

20 Appendix E contains eligible aircraft numbers provided by GAMA.

21 2010 FAA Airmen Statistics indicate that there are 627,588 active airmen in the U.S.

22 2009 Research and Innovative Technology Administration Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Number of U.S. 

Aircraft, Vehicles, Vessels, and Other Conveyances indicates that there are 231,648 registered aircraft in the U.S.
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 19 of 41

operations. The limitations and restrictions in this petition for exemption would maintain or 

enhance aviation safety by incentivizing pilots to continue flying in aircraft with which they are 

already familiar and enhancing knowledge and awareness of aeromedical factors through 

mandatory recurrent education for all pilots utilizing the exemption. Further, it is in the public 

interest to foster aviation for pilots, air carriers, manufacturers, and all of those who make a 

living using aviation or who rely on aviation for commerce and transportation; keeping the cost 

of flying reasonable; and conserving government resources, possibly allowing those resources to 

be redirected to more urgent safety programs. The data collected from those operating under this 

requested exemption could provide otherwise unattainable validation for the extent a medical 

certificate may be necessary. 

The jury is in - the FAA now has undeniable, sufficient evidence from operations not 

requiring a medical certificate, including the new information derived from the sport pilot 

certificate, to grant this request. 

For the reasons stated above, AOPA and EAA request that the FAA act favorably and 

expeditiously on this petition for exemption. AOPA and EAA stand ready to assist the FAA as it 

considers the regulatory exemptions requested herein, and others as may be necessary, and the 

development and deployment of appropriate training and education materials.

Sincerely,

Craig Fuller

President and CEO

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association

Rod Hightower

President and CEO

Experimental Aircraft Association
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 20 of 41

Appendix A. Proposed Aircraft and Operating Limitations under a Driver’s License/SelfAssessment 

Limitations placed on pilots utilizing the AOPA / EAA exemption would include the following 

limitations23:

(a) A person operating under the AOPA/EAA medical exemption may:

(1) Carry no more than one passenger; and

(2) Not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with a 

passenger, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenses, or aircraft rental 

fees.

(b) A person operating under the AOPA/EAA medical exemption may not act as pilot in 

command of an aircraft—

(1) That is certificated—

(i) For more than four occupants;

(ii) With more than one powerplant;

(iii) With a powerplant of more than 180 horsepower, except aircraft certificated in 

the rotorcraft category; or

(iv) With retractable landing gear;

(2) That is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire;

(3) For compensation or hire;

(4) In furtherance of a business;

(5) Between sunset and sunrise;

(6) At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher;

(7) When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles;

(8) Without visual reference to the surface;

(9) On a flight outside the United States, unless authorized by the country in which the 

flight is conducted;

(10) To demonstrate that aircraft in flight as an aircraft salesperson to a prospective 

buyer;

(11) That is towing any object.

(12) Without completion of the AOPA/EAA airman medical education course within the 

preceding 24 months

 

23 All pilots who hold a recreational pilot certificate will also be limited by the privileges and limitations listed for 

the recreational pilot certificate under §61.101. For example, a recreational pilot will still require an endorsement 

prior to cross-country flight beyond 50nm.
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 21 of 41

Appendix B: Medical Educational Course description and outline

Course Overview

Current FAA-required training material emphasizes the physiological factors that can lead to inflight emergencies such as hypoxia, hyperventilation, middle ear and sinus problems, spatial 

disorientation, motion sickness, carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning, stress and fatigue, 

dehydration, and heatstroke. Additionally, the FAA provides minimal education of physiological 

factors that should be self-assessed pre-flight by pilots such as illness, effects of medication, 

alcohol, fatigue, stress, and current emotional state. There is no training on identifying signs and 

symptoms associated with serious medical conditions. This course will be designed to teach 

pilots how to identify the signs and symptoms of serious medical conditions and how to conduct 

a self-assessment. The course will be valuable not only for pilots participating in the exemption 

but for all pilots in the years between AME exams.

The online course will follow the basic design and navigation functionality of the Air Safety 

Institute’s existing online courses. Features may include images, illustrations, animations, video, 

and other types of interactivity to engage users. The course will be broken up into modules / 

chapters with train to proficiency quizzes at the end of each chapter. A course completion 

certificate will be made available after successful course completion. The course subjects 

significantly supplement the primary training physiological education and will make due 

reference to the Airmen’s Information Manual and FAA website resources pertaining to medical 

issues.

Content

Training elements should include:

1. Program Guidelines – Pilot responsibilities

a. Recurrent course completion (every 24 months)

b. Print out certificate of completion, keep certificate with pilot certificate and make 

available for FAA inspection as proof of course completion / eligible to operate 

under the AOPA/EAA exemption

c. Review the baseline of health validated with a current and valid driver’s license –

must have available for FAA inspection

d. Definition of self-assessment of health – prior to each flight, consideration must 

be given to current state of health as well as recent medical history and 

medications taken

e. 14 CFR 61.53 requirement
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 22 of 41

f. Limitations and privileges associated with operating under the AOPA / EAA 

medical exemption – with a special emphasis on the limitations of size of aircraft 

and type of operations

2. Medical Certification

a. Preventative Medicine

i. Exercise

ii. Diet

iii. Body Mass Index

iv. Non-smoking

v. Hydration

vi. Blood pressure

vii. Regular doctor visits

viii. Supporting statistics from health insurance carriers regarding the effects 

on people who participate in preventative medicine

ix. Tools for pilots – online weight / exercise trackers, etc.?

b. Self-assessment overview

i. Requirement of 61.53

ii. Review of flight physiology from AIM

1. Alcohol

2. Fatigue

3. Stress

4. Emotion

5. Effects of Altitude

a. Hypoxia

b. Ear block 

c. Sinus block

d. Decompression sickness

e. Hyperventilation

f. Carbon monoxide poisoning

6. Illusions in flight – physical illusions from inner ear or spatial 

disorientation 

7. Aerobatic flight – G forces

iii. Current state of health including health history

1. Wellness assessment 

2. Identifying symptoms that are most common in flight 

incapacitation risks

3. Aeromedical implications / evaluation of risk factors

4. Age related considerations 

5. Tools available to assist pilots with self-assessment 
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 23 of 41

c. Diagnosed medical conditions

i. Cardiac

1. Symptoms

2. Risk assessment

3. Tools/resources for pilots

ii. Neurological

1. Symptoms

2. Risk assessment

3. Tools/resources for pilots

iii. Lung

1. Symptoms

2. Risk assessment

3. Tools/resources for pilots

iv. Diabetes

1. Symptoms

2. Risk assessment

3. Tools/resources for pilots

v. Cancer

1. Symptoms

2. Risk assessment

3. Tools/resources for pilots

vi. Vision

1. Symptoms

2. Risk assessment

3. Tools/resources for pilots

d. Medications

i. AIM guidance

ii. Time since use considerations

iii. Commonly prescribed meds

iv. Pain medications

v. Over the counter meds

1. Cold medications

2. Analgesics

vi. Herbal medications/homeopathic medications/supplements

vii. Mentation - Psychotropic effects

viii. Altitude effects on medication effects

ix. Surgeries

x. Tools for pilots

1. medications list online
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 24 of 41

Appendix C. Historical listing of efforts to relieve overly burdensome and unnecessary medical 

certification requirements

1938 - 1971 

The 1938 Code of Federal Regulations required an appropriate physical examination before a 

pilot could test for a pilot certificate but did not provide for the issuance of airman medical 

certificates. In 1942, a system for the issuance of medical certificates was adopted that provided 

for the issuance of first-, second-, and third-class medical certificates. 

A number of specific changes to the medical standards took effect in 1959. Electrocardiographic 

examination was required of first-class medical certificate applicants to demonstrate the absence 

of myocardial infarction and to identify other cardiovascular conditions. Additional medical 

standards were added related to a person's general physical condition and nervous system. As a 

result of the recommendations from a Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) study, the procedures were 

amended to prohibit the granting of special issuances to airmen with the following medical 

conditions: an established diagnosis of diabetes requiring insulin or other hypoglycemic 

treatment agents; a history of myocardial infarction or other evidence of coronary artery disease; 

or, a history of an established diagnosis of psychosis, severe psychoneurosis, severe personality 

abnormality, epilepsy, chronic alcoholism or drug addiction.

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 provided for the granting of exemptions by the FAA 

administrator, and in 1960, the FAA specified that the existing general exemption procedures 

applied to the medical standards. Shortly afterward, rapid developments in medical knowledge 

about the disqualifying conditions and the development of improved techniques for prediction of 

their risk for incapacitation led the FAA to grant exemptions, with appropriate limitations, to 

many persons with the above conditions. 

In 1971, the authority to grant or deny petitions for exemption from Part 67 was delegated to the 

Federal Air Surgeon in an effort to reduce administrative processing time and lower costs for the 

FAA in the granting of exemptions.24 The FAA granted more than 3,000 medical exemptions in 

the ensuing years. Overall, the safety record of airmen who were granted exemptions has been at 

least as good as that of the airmen who hold medical certificates issued under the medical 

standards.

 

24 36 Fed. Reg. 3462 (Feb. 25, 1971)
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 25 of 41

1979 to present

AOPA and EAA have a long history of petitioning the FAA and commenting to rulemaking 

actions to expand the duration of the third-class medical certificate and substitute the need for a 

medical certificate with the use of a driver’s license for recreational flying activities. These 

efforts span more than 30 years.

1979 - AOPA petitions to increase the duration of third-class medical certificates: On May 11, 

1979, AOPA petitioned to amend § 61.23 to require medical examinations for private pilots at 

three-year intervals rather than every two years. The petition was based on AOPA's belief that 

safety would not be compromised, that private pilots would realize a significant economic 

savings, and that it would reduce the FAA's workload and allow better administration of the 

medical certification system.

1982 - FAA issues NPRM to revise duration of medical certificates: On December 2, 1982, the 

FAA issued a notice of proposed (NPRM) rulemaking to revise the duration of airman medical 

certificates.25 The FAA stated in the NPRM, “In response to Executive Order 12291, these 

proposals, if adopted, will reduce a regulatory and economic burden on certain general aviation 

pilots and reduce a paperwork burden on the agency. This proposal replies to a petition from the 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.” Prior to drafting the NPRM, the FAA surveyed and 

analyzed medical literature and Department of Defense policies of aeromedical certification data. 

The FAA also contracted with Johns Hopkins University to prepare a detailed statistical analysis 

of computerized medical information collected by the FAA from annual examinations on 

approximately 31,000 air traffic controllers over a 15-year period. The study sample was 

demographically comparable to the private pilot population and the examinations were similar to 

airman medical examinations. In conclusion, the FAA stated in the NPRM, “The FAA agrees 

with the concept of the AOPA petition. It has been determined, however, that the frequency of 

third-class medical examinations for persons without detected pathology should be based on the 

age of the airman. After reviewing the Johns Hopkins University statistical analysis and other 

available data, the FAA proposes to lengthen the validity period of most third-class medical 

certificates for persons under the age of 56.”26 

1985 - FAA withdraws NPRM: On September 27, 1985 the FAA announced withdrawal of the 

NPRM to revise the duration of airman medical certificates, stating “[w]hereas Notice No. 82-15 

dealt solely with the duration of airman medical certificates, the FAA has announced and is 

conducting a complete review of the medical standards for airmen and of its certification 

practices and procedures (47 FR 16298, April 15, 1982; 47 FR 30795, July 15, 1982). As part of 

 

25 47 Fed. Reg. 54414 (Dec. 2, 1982)

26 Id. at 55415.
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 26 of 41

that review the American Medical Association (AMA) is reviewing these standards and 

procedures and is expected to report its recommendations to the FAA in February 1986. Given 

the imminent issuance of the AMA's report, and the fact that the report may well provide the 

FAA with better data on which to base an evaluation of the safety concerns regarding the 

proposals which were raised by the medical community, the FAA has decided to withdraw the 

notice and reconsider this matter in the context of its review of the AMA's recommendation. Any 

future consideration of examination frequency will be given within the context of this study's 

outcome.”27

1985 - FAA issues a NPRM to establish recreational pilot certificates: On June 25, 1985, the 

FAA issued a NPRM to revise the regulations to establish recreational pilot certificates.28 

According to the NPRM, “The primary basis for this proposed rule is a petition submitted to the 

FAA by a committee formed by the National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI). The 

committee was formed in response to an initial proposal submitted to the FAA by the Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and later withdrawn in anticipation of the committee's 

recommendations. The purpose of the committee, which was composed of industry and FAA 

people involved in pilot training, was to review the requirements for certification of student and 

private pilots. The committee included representatives of the University of North Dakota, 

University of Illinois, Flying magazine, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Auburn 

University, AOPA Air Safety Foundation, and Instrument Flight Training, Minneapolis, and 

Office of Flight Operation FAA.” 

“The committee found that past revisions of Part 61 had imposed an unnecessary burden on a 

segment of the flying public. These revisions had so changed the requirements for private pilot 

training in instrumentation that: (1) less expensive, simple aircraft were no longer used for 

training because these aircraft were not equipped with the necessary instruments and (2) the 

hours for training had necessarily increased even for student pilots whose interests were solely in 

flying basic aircraft. The committee's solution to the problem was to propose two new categories 

of pilot certification: student recreational and recreational pilot to be certificated for flying only 

basic aircraft.” 

As part of the NPRM, the FAA solicited comments and supporting documentation on the thirdclass medical certificate requirement, including the degree to which it is a burden and alternative 

ways to assess an individual's medical fitness, such as using a driver’s license which shows the 

status of the applicant's vision, or a family physician's testament to basic health.

 

27 50 Fed. Reg. 39619 (Sept. 27, 1985).

28 50 Fed. Reg. 26286 (June 25, 1985). 
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 27 of 41

The limitations proposed in the NPRM for the Student Recreational and the Recreational pilot 

certificate were to allow for “somewhat reduced eligibility and training requirements in 

comparison to those required of private pilots.” “The proposed rule considers one of two options 

for the medical eligibility requirements: (1) a third-class medical certificate, or (2) a certification 

by the prospective recreational pilot that he/she has no known medical defect that would interfere 

with his/her ability to safely operate an aircraft.”29 

AOPA and EAA submitted separate comments to the NPRM “Certification of Student 

Recreational, Recreational, Student Private and Private Pilots”. In these comments, AOPA and 

EAA supported the proposal that a recreational pilot has the authority to “self-certify” their 

medical condition and maintained then, as they do today, that the successful “self-certifying” 

medical provisions authorized for the glider and balloon community should be extended to pilots 

who fly recreationally. 

1986 - AOPA again petitions for increased duration of third-class airman medical certificates: 

On February 26, 1986, AOPA again petitioned the FAA, Docket No. 24932, to revise the 

duration of a third-class airman medical certificate to 36 calendar months for noncommercial 

operations requiring a private, recreational, or student pilot certificate. 

1989 - FAA issues final rule creating recreational pilot certificate with required medical 

certificate despite overwhelming support for self-certification: On March 29, 1989, the FAA 

issued their final rule creating the recreational pilot certificate.30 In that final rule, the agency 

stated: “An overwhelming majority of the comments received on this issue favor selfcertification. After extensive review and deliberation, the FAA has determined that there is no 

basis for deleting the third-class medical requirements for recreational pilots.”31 

1993 - EAA petitions to allow recreational flyers to self-certify: On September 24, 1993, EAA 

submitted a Petition for Rulemaking, Docket No. 27517, to the FAA for purpose of allowing 

individuals who fly recreationally to, in lieu of holding an FAA third-class medical certificate, 

“self-certify” that he or she has no known medical condition or defect that would make him or 

her unable to pilot an aircraft safely. On January 3, 1994, the FAA published the EAA petition.32 

 

29 Id. at 26288

30 Certification & Annual Flight Review Requirements for Recreational Pilots, 54 Fed. Reg. 13028 (March 29, 1989). 

31 Id. at 13030

32 Petition for Rulemaking; Summary of Petitions Received, 59 Fed. Reg. 31 (Jan. 3, 1994).
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 28 of 41

The comment period for the EAA petition closed on March 4, 1994. There were more than one 

thousand comments received. The majority of those who commented voiced overwhelming 

support for the petition.

1993 - AOPA petitions for increased duration of medical certificates to 48 months: Also in 

September 1993, AOPA petitioned the FAA to extend the duration of a third-class medical 

certificate to 48 months for noncommercial operations requiring a private or student pilot 

certificate. This petition was based upon the successful experience in the United Kingdom of a 

five-year medical certification standard and the extremely low rate of medical incapacitation 

related accidents in the United States. Then, as now, medical incapacitation by previously 

undiagnosed pathologies accounted for less than one half of one percent of all general aviation 

accidents. 

1994 - FAA issues a NPRM to revise duration of third-class airman medical certificates: On 

October 21, 1994, the FAA published a NPRM for the Part 67 revision of airman medical 

standards and medical certification procedures and amendment of Part 61 to revise the duration 

of third-class airman medical certificates based on the age of the airman for operations requiring 

a private, recreational, or student pilot certificate.33 The FAA proposed to lengthen the validity 

period of third-class medical certificates for most persons under the age of 40. “Persons under 

age 40 would be required to undergo a physical examination every 3 years for a third-class 

medical certificate. Third-class medical certificates for persons age 40 but less than age 70 would 

continue to be valid for 2 years. Persons age 70 and older would be required to undergo a 

physical examination every year when applying for a third-class medical certificate.”34

1996 - The FAA issues a final rule denying AOPA’s 1986 and 1993 petitions and increasing 

duration of third-class medical certificate only for pilots under 40: On March 19, 1996, the FAA 

issued the final rule for their part 67 rewrite.35 In preparing the final rule, the FAA reviewed the 

more than 5,200 comments that were submitted in response to the NPRM. In this final rule, the 

duration of the third-class medical certificate was changed to 36 months for pilots under the age 

of 40. The FAA withdrew the proposed shortened duration of third-class medical certificate of 

airmen older than the age of 70 because of “insufficient data to support the revision.” 

1995 - FAA issues NPRM incorporating EAA’s 1993 requested self-certification for 

recreational flyers: On August 11, 1995, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

 

33 59 Fed. Reg. 53226 (Oct. 21, 1994). 

34 Id. at 53230.

35 Revision of Airman Medical Standards and Certification Procedures and Duration of Medical Certificates, 61 Fed. 

Reg. 11238 (Mar. 19, 1996). 
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 29 of 41

(NPRM), which incorporated the requested rule change submitted by EAA in 1993. Proposed 

Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot School Certification Rules, 60 Fed. Reg. 41160 

(Aug. 11, 1995). In that NPRM, the FAA proposed allowing pilots who hold recreational pilot 

certificates and those higher rated pilots who elect only to exercise recreational pilot privileges to 

operate aircraft without a medical certificate. Specifically, this proposal would have included 

student pilots seeking a recreational pilot certificate, holders of a recreational pilot certificate, 

and holders of a higher pilot certificate who elect only to exercise the privileges of a recreational 

pilot certificate. 

The FAA stated, “Since the early 1930s, all pilots, except glider and balloon pilots, have been 

required to hold medical certificates in order to exercise the privileges of their pilot certificates. 

The FAA determined that medical certificates were required for the purpose of ensuring the 

safety of the pilot in command and passengers, and also for the safety of people and property on 

the ground. As a result of the EAA petition discussed earlier and the interest shown in the 

general aviation community, the FAA is seeking wider comment on whether recreational pilots 

and holders of a higher pilot certificate who elect to exercise the privileges of a recreational pilot 

certificate should be required to hold medical certificates. The FAA is also seeking data on any 

safety or other public interest concerns that may arise from obviating any review of medical 

qualifications by medical professionals.”36 

“Pilots applying for a recreational pilot certificate would be required to certify at the time of 

application that they have no known medical condition or deficiency that makes them unable to 

operate the aircraft in a safe manner. This requirement parallels the provisions that are now 

provided to balloon and glider pilots under the current rules. This proposal would prohibit pilots 

from exercising the privileges of a recreational pilot certificate if they have a known medical 

condition or deficiency that would make them unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner or if 

they are taking any medication or receiving other treatment for a medical condition that would 

make them unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner.” 

“The FAA is not proposing specific medical standards for this pilot self-evaluation but instead 

are proposing that pilots self-evaluate prior to each flight whether they have any medical 

conditions that would inhibit their ability to operate the aircraft in a safe manner. The FAA 

would rely on the pilot's knowledge and judgment as to their medical fitness for conducting each 

flight. The FAA strongly encourages the public to comment on whether there should be specific 

medical standards upon which the pilot should base their self-evaluation.” 

“On November 17, 1994, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) provided the FAA 

with general aviation accident data involving medical incapacitation since 1982 for balloon and 

 

36 Id. at 41169.
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 30 of 41

glider pilots. There have been a total of seven accidents involving balloon and glider pilots since

1982 where a finding was made on medical incapacitation as a cause or factor involved in the 

accident. Out of those seven accidents, four pilots had valid medical certificates, two pilots had 

held a medical certificate but the certificates were expired, and only one pilot did not hold a 

medical certificate.”37 

1997 - FAA issues final rule withdrawing proposed change, noting overwhelming support for 

eliminating the medical certificate requirement for recreational pilots but indicating intent to 

conduct additional study with possible future rulemaking: On April 4, 1997, the FAA issued final 

rule for the 1995 NPRM. Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot School 

Certification Rules, 62 Fed. Reg. 16220 (Apr. 4, 1997). In that rule, the FAA stated “The FAA 

carefully considered all comments pertaining to the proposal that pilots who hold recreational 

pilot certificates, student pilots operating within the limitations of a recreational pilot certificate, 

and those higher-rated pilots who elect to exercise only recreational pilot privileges be permitted 

to operate an aircraft without holding a medical certificate. Although the FAA acknowledges 

that most of the comments favored eliminating the third-class medical certificate requirement for 

such pilots, few of these comments contained supporting data or analysis.... The FAA has 

determined that additional scrutiny of the proposal is needed to ensure that it would raise or 

maintain the current level of safety; therefore, the FAA has withdrawn the proposed change from 

the final rule. The FAA intends to conduct additional study on this proposal and may issue a 

separate rulemaking action in the future.” Id. at 16225.

Mid-1990s - An FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee reviews accident summary 

data and concludes that 0.1 percent of accidents in operations not requiring an airman medical 

certificate, and 0.05 percent of accidents in operations requiring a certificate, showed a medical 

cause: An ARAC reviewed accident summary data from 1986 through 1992, that concluded that 

the percentage of aviation accidents involving medical causal factors is lower for those activities 

that do not require medical certificates than for those activities that do. During this seven-year 

timeframe, the ARAC indicates there were 761 accidents in lighter-than-air aircraft and gliders -

operations that do not require airman medical certification. Only one of the 761 accidents 

showed a medical cause, according to ARAC (slightly more than 0.1 of one percent of total 

accidents). For general aviation operations requiring airman medical certification, ARAC 

indicates there were 46,976 total accidents, 99 of which (slightly more than one-fifth of one 

percent) showed a medical cause.

1995 - AOPA Air Safety Foundation study concludes 1.9 percent of general aviation accidents 

had a contributing medical factor, less than one-third of which were related to non-drug or 

alcohol health issues: In 1995, the AOPA Air Safety Foundation conducted a comprehensive 

 

37 Id. at 41170.
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 31 of 41

analysis of medical casual factors in general aviation accidents. The study showed that during a 

10-year period from 1982 to 1991, there were 19,925 general aviation accidents. Of these, only 

379 or about 1.9 percent had any medical factors contributing to the accident as determined by 

the NTSB. A closer look at these 379 accidents shows that well more than two-thirds were 

caused by the use of alcohol and/or drugs both illicit and prescribed. While most regrettable, 

there is no way a medical examiner, under any set of regulations or medical standards, can 

prevent an otherwise healthy pilot from illegally operating an aircraft under the influence. This 

leaves only 120 medically related accidents during the 10-year period.

The breakdown of these 120 medically related accidents was as follows:

• Eighteen involved pilots who did not hold a medical certificate or had a certificate that 

was clearly invalid. No change in medical standards or increased thoroughness of an 

AME exam will prevent these accidents.

• Eight were labeled as medical incapacitations by investigators but the cause was not 

determined.

• Fifteen were related to hypoxia or carbon monoxide poisoning, which has no connection 

with the medical certification standards. 

• Eighteen were attributable to a variety of medical conditions that did not involve 

preexisting conditions that could have been detected by the AME at the time of certificate 

issuance. These included gunshot wounds, motion sickness, cold and flu symptoms, head 

trauma, upset stomach, and leg cramps.

• Forty-one were reportedly caused by myocardial infarctions (heart attacks). No other 

medical factor recurred in an accident more than one time per year. 

• Two were caused by strokes.

• Four were visual deficiency.

• Eighteen were attributed to "other" organic, cardiovascular, and toxic problems.

2002 - AOPA submits petition to eliminate medical certification requirement for recreational 

pilots: In January 2002, AOPA submitted a petition for rulemaking to amend the medical 

certification requirements for operating an aircraft while exercising the privileges of a 

recreational pilot certificate. AOPA requested that the FAA permit the use of a current and valid

U.S. driver's license in lieu of an FAA medical certificate to meet the medical certification 

requirements of a recreational pilot certificate.
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 32 of 41

2002 - FAA issues a NPRM proposing self-certification for Sport Pilots: On February 5, 2002, 

the FAA Issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, proposing to adopt the ARAC’s 

recommendation of self-certification for Sport Pilots.38 The proposed rule would allow sport 

pilots to use a driver’s license in lieu of an FAA medical certificate.

2002 - FAA denies AOPA’s petition as premature while the issue is under consideration for 

Sport Pilots: On September 13, 2002 the FAA denied AOPA’s petition to allow pilots to use a 

driver’s license as a medical certificate to exercise recreational pilot privileges, without an 

opportunity for public comment. In its denial, the FAA cited other more pressing rulemaking

priorities. FAA also stated “It would be premature to actively consider your proposal for 

Recreational Pilots while the issue is still under consideration for application to Sport Pilots.” 

2002 - EAA submits petition to allow recreational pilots to fly without the requirement to hold a 

medical certificate: On September 26, 2002, the EAA petitioned the FAA for an exemption from 

§ 61.23 to permit EAA members holding any pilot certificate to exercise the privileges of a 

recreational pilot using a current and valid U.S. driver’s license instead of an FAA-issued 

medical certificate. 

2003 - FAA denies EAA petition as premature while issue is under consideration for Sport 

Pilots: On March 3, 2003, the FAA denied EAA’s petition stating that “the FAA is currently 

working on a related rulemaking action for Light Sport pilots that will address issues similar to 

those raised in this petition for exemption. Therefore, the FAA finds that it would be premature 

to actively consider a petition for exemption for Recreational pilots while the issue is still under 

consideration for application to Sport Pilots.” 

2003 - AOPA submits new petition to exempt recreational pilots from medical certificate, 

narrower in scope and providing for additional research information: In January 2003, AOPA 

followed up its denied 2002 request with a new petition for exemption from § 61.3(c) and 

61.23(a)(3)(ii) and (iii), which would have allowed members of the association to use a valid and 

current U. S. driver’s license in lieu of an FAA medical certificate when exercising the privileges 

of a recreational pilot certificate. In the request, AOPA attempted to address FAA concerns from 

the 2002 proposal stating, “FAA acknowledged that its Sport Pilot proposal and AOPA's 

Recreational pilot proposal addressed similar issues” but said the AOPA petition was 

‘premature’. The FAA also stated that it wanted to evaluate the operations of Sport Pilots using a 

valid driver's license in lieu of a medical before it extended the option to Recreational pilot 

privileges. In subsequent discussions with the FAA, AOPA learned that one of the FAA’s 

reasons for denying the AOPA petition was that the request was considered to be too broad in 

 

38 Proposed Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft, 67 Fed. Reg. 5368 (Feb. 5, 

2002).
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 33 of 41

scope, in that the FAA feels there is not enough baseline medical data to allow full 

implementation of a driver’s license medical standard for exercising recreational pilot privileges. 

This Petition for Exemption request seeks to address this FAA concern and establish that 

baseline medical research information. The information gained from the research obtained 

through this exemption should allow the FAA to make a decision to allow the use of a driver’s 

license for Recreational pilots.”

2003 - FAA denies AOPA’s petition as premature while issue is under consideration for Sport 

Pilots: In March 2003, the FAA responded to AOPA’s request for exemption stating, “The FAA 

has considered fully the petitioner’s supporting information and finds that a grant of exemption 

would not be in the public interest. As the petitioner is aware, the FAA is currently working on a 

related rulemaking action for Light Sport pilots that will address issues similar to those raised in 

this petition for exemption. The FAA notes that the comment period for the Light Sport pilot 

NPRM closed on May 6, 2002. The FAA received more than 2,400 comments for consideration. 

The rulemaking team is in the process of reviewing the comments and drafting the final rule. 

Therefore, the FAA finds that it would be premature to actively consider a petition for exemption 

for recreational pilots while the issue is still under consideration for application to sport pilots. 

Furthermore, the FAA is not seeking to obtain information, data, or experience beyond what we 

will get from operations under the Sport Pilot rule (if it goes out in final form authorizing the use 

of a driver’s license in lieu of a medical certificate).”

2004 - FAA issues final rule allowing self-certification for Sport Pilots: On July 27, 2004, the 

FAA promulgated the sport pilot rule, allowing pilots to exercise the privileges of the sport pilot 

certificate without an FAA medical certificate.39 The FAA emphasized the responsibility of 

pilots to carefully consider their fitness to fly, noting that “no level of airman medical 

certification will ever alleviate this responsibility.” Id. at 44816.

2006 - AOPA again petitions the FAA to allow recreational pilots to operate without the 

requirement for a medical certificate: In 2006, AOPA again petitioned the FAA to permit 

medical self-certification for the exercise of Recreational pilot privileges. 

2006 - FAA denies AOPA’s petition as premature while the issue is under consideration for 

application to Sport Pilots: In 2006, the FAA again denied AOPA’s petition on the basis that “it 

would be premature to actively consider your proposal for recreational pilots while the issue is 

still under consideration for application to Sport Pilots.”

2007 - FAA issues NPRM to extend duration of medical certificates: On April 10, 2007, the 

FAA issued a NPRM for the Modification of Certain Medical Standards and Procedures and 

 

39 Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft, 69 Fed. Reg. 44772 (July 27, 2004). 
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 34 of 41

Duration of Certain Medical Certificates.40 In that NPRM, the FAA stated, “The FAA has not 

reviewed the medical duration standards since 1996 when it extended the duration of third-class 

medical certificates from two years to three years for individuals under age 40. The FAA is 

proposing to further extend certain § 61.23 (d) provisions in order to provide a more reasonable, 

updated examination timetable for certain medical certificate holders and with a view to more 

efficiently managing the airman medical certification program overall. Decreasing the frequency 

of medical examinations by increasing the duration of validity from six months to one year on 

first-class medical certificates for individuals under age 40 and from 36 months to 60 months on 

third-class medical certificates for individuals under age 40 would reflect the FAA’s assessment 

of the current, appropriate interval for younger airmen. It also would decrease routine workflow 

thereby allowing the FAA to focus on the most safety-critical certification cases and provide 

more efficient service to other applicants waiting to be processed.”41 

2007 - AOPA and EAA comment in support of NPRM and request allowing the use of a driver’s 

license instead of a medical certificate for recreational pilots: AOPA and EAA wrote comments 

in support of the extension of the medical duration and specifically requested that the FAA 

consider allowing a U.S. driver’s license as medical qualification in lieu of an FAA medical 

certificate to exercise recreational pilot privileges.

2008 - FAA issues final rule refusing to consider use of a driver’s license as medical 

qualification for recreational pilots: On July 24, 2008, the FAA issued its final rule stating that 

the requests to allow a U.S. driver’s license as medical qualification in lieu of an FAA medical 

certificate to exercise Recreational pilot privileges is “beyond the scope of the proposal”.42 The 

FAA went on to state, “The FAA proposal did not address, or propose to amend, standards for 

recreational pilots other than, for certain pilots, the duration of a third-class medical certificate, 

required when exercising Recreational pilot privileges... The only pilots currently allowed to 

medically qualify using a U.S. driver’s license are Sport Pilots. The FAA did not find cause 

during sport pilot rulemaking deliberations, and at this time does not have sufficient experience 

certificating sport pilots, to reconsider the third-class medical certificate standard for the exercise 

of Recreational pilot privileges.” 

2011 - AOPA files a comment in support of a 2009 petition for rulemaking on eliminating the 3rd

class medical requirement for aircraft under 6,000 pounds submitted by David Wartofsky, owner 

of Potomac Airfield in Friendly, Md. In its comment, AOPA stated that the association “has 

 

40 72 Fed. Reg. 18092 (Apr. 10, 2007). 

41 Id. at 18093.

42 Modification of Certain Medical Standards and Procedures and Duration of Certain Medical Certificates, 73 Fed. 

Reg. 43059, 43062. 
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 35 of 41

long supported expansion of the eligible population and kinds of operations that can use a 

driver’s license medical or self-certification as is requested in this petition. AOPA supports the 

concept [of the Wartofsky petition] and will continue to advocate for an expansion to the driver’s 

license medical standard so that it may apply to pilots exercising the privileges of higher 

certificate levels. Reducing the economic and regulatory burden to being a pilot would promote 

the growth of general aviation. This would directly benefit student pilots, pilots, flight instructors 

and flight schools while indirectly benefiting the aircraft manufacturers, FBOs, airports and the 

GA community as a whole.”

2012 - On Feb. 2, 2012, the FAA denied the 2009 petition by David Wartofsky stating, 

“Expanding the option of relying on a valid state driver's license in lieu of a third-class airman 

medical certificate to include private pilots exercising privileges in aircraft whose performance 

and handling qualities typically are well above current LSA limitations would require complex 

amendments to FAA aircraft certification, operational, and medical standards that, absent more 

substantive safety evidence, may prove unwise,”
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 36 of 41

Appendix D. Economic analysis

Economic Benefits of the Driver’s License / Self-Assessment Standard

This proposal would result in substantial economic savings for pilots and the federal government. 

Utilizing formulas, assumptions, and figures developed for the economic analysis of the FAA 

modification of certain medical duration standards in 2007, we have calculated that this proposal 

would generate savings of $241,929,900 to pilots in a ten year period and savings to the Federal 

government of more than $11,530,910 in the same period.

General Assumptions

1. Cost to a pilot for a medical exam is $321 as calculated in a December 2007 regulatory 

evaluation document for modification of certain medical duration standards ($88 price of 

medical exam + $116 for travel time + $78 time for the exam + $39 time to fill out form)

2. Paperwork cost for FAA is $25.04 per certificate (30 minutes at blended rate of $50.08)

3. 30 percent of the pilots who are currently issued third-class FAA medical certificates will 

opt to take part in the requirements called for in petition and not renew their medical 

certificate

4. 50 percent of pilots issued third-class medicals under special issuance will opt to take part 

in the requirements called for in petition and not renew their medical certificate

Savings for pilots

The number of third-class medical certificates issued annually is approximately 107,300 (2010).

Not all holders of third-class medicals fly aircraft that fit the limitations or will not want to 

restrict their operations in order to participate in this proposed exemption, therefore not all 

holders of a third-class medical certificate would likely forego future applications for a third

class medical certificate. A conservative estimate is that 30 percent of holders of third class 

medicals would take part in the training requirements and limitations called for in this petition 

and will not renew their medical certificate. Therefore, the total estimated participants in the 

driver’s license / self-assessment medical is 32,190 annually.
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 37 of 41

Using 32,190 participants and the assumptions listed above, the 10-year total savings ($321 per 

certificate)43 equal approximately $103,329,900 for the pilots participating in the program.

The number of third-class medical certificates issued annually under special issuance is 

approximately 13,859 (2010).

The cost and burden associated with renewing a special issuance medical certificate varies 

widely based upon the competency of the AME and the pathology requiring the special issuance. 

For example, vision standards may be relatively simple to renew, while the requirement to renew 

a special issuance based on a cardiovascular or neurological condition may prove to be 

overwhelming in cost and complexity. It is not at all uncommon for these airmen to spend in 

excess of $1,000 annually to renew their special issuance medical certificate. In fact, AOPA and 

EAA are aware of instances where the special issuance process has cost individuals more than 

$3,000, an extraordinary expense to maintain the privilege of flying for recreation or personal 

transportation.

The average cost of obtaining a special issuance authorization (SI) is $2,000, not factoring in 

travel time or time off work associated with the testing and administrative process. Often the 

cost to conduct the required testing to obtain an authorization is borne by the individual pilot 

alone if not deemed necessary by the personal physicians and covered by medical insurance. For 

these reasons, we believe that a greater number of pilots currently operating under SI medical 

certificates will participate in the driver’s license/self-assessment standard. Assuming that 50

percent of this group (6,930 pilots) would participate in the driver’s license/self-assessment

medical standard, the savings to pilots would total $13,860,000 annually or $138,600,000 over 

10 years.

Total savings for pilots over 10 years is conservatively estimated at $241,929,900.

FAA, AME, CAMI officers, CAMI physicians, et cetera.

Again, utilizing formulas developed for the economic analysis for the FAA modification of 

certain medical duration standards in 2007, each employee will spend approximately 30 minutes 

to review the medical applications. Estimated blended wage of $50.08 for the cost of time of 

employees that will review the medical44.

For the 32,190 fewer third-class medicals processed annually, the FAA will save $806,037 

annually. 

 

43 $321 = $88 price of medical exam (2006) + $116 for travel time + $78 time for the exam + $39 time to fill out 

form. From the FAA’s 2007 economic evaluation to support the “Modification of Certain Medical Duration 

Standards and Authority Delegated to Select Designees” Final Rule

44 Assumptions per Regulatory evaluation for modification of certain medical duration standards NPRM
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 38 of 41

Special issuances require more time for approval. A conservative estimate is that the approval 

time for special issuances is 60 minutes. Estimated blended wage is $50.08 for the cost of time 

of employees that will review the medical45.

With an estimated 6,930 fewer special issuances annually, the FAA could save an additional 

$347,054 annually. 

Total estimated savings in paperwork for FAA, AME, CAMI officers, and CAMI physicians is 

$1,153,091 annually or $11,530,910 over 10 years.

 

45 Assumptions per Regulatory evaluation for modification of certain medical duration standards NPRM
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 39 of 41

Appendix E. GAMA Letter for Estimation of Affected Aircraft
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 40 of 41
AOPA / EAA Petition for Exemption from § 61.3 and 61.23 

Page 41 of 41