Straight from the aerospace medical division of the FAA came my official airman’s medical notification a couple of days ago, and while it’s a very good thing that ends a long chapter of frustration, the document is not without thorns.

The good news is that I do have a medical certificate (below), but it carries more restrictions than my previous certificates — I have to carry a letter of authorization with me whenever I fly, for example. Here’s what the medical looks like:

medical certificate

medical certificate

But more interesting is the letter of authorization, which invokes the regulations, parts 67.113, 67.213, and 67.313, which are simply identical and parallel subparts covering first-, second-, and third-class medicals, and deal with general medical conditions that aren’t generally specified in the rest of the part:

(b) No other organic, functional, or structural disease, defect, or limitation that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition involved, finds—

(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.

(c) No medication or other treatment that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the medication or other treatment involved, finds—

(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.

I don’t know where the FAA gets the idea that gender issues (or the medications, if any, related to gender issues) would “make a person unable to safely perform the duties of the airman certificate,” and I find the suggestion pretty insulting.

The letter (below) also mentions 67.401, which deals with the letter of authorization. The rationale given in this section is largely public safety with language like this: “…capable of performing airman duties without endangering public safety.” This stands in contrast to the aforementioned sections, which appeal to the airman’s ability to perform duties. To its credit, this section recognizes that holders of 3rd class medical certificates are private pilots:

[The FAA needs to] consider the freedom of an airman, exercising the privileges of a private pilot certificate, to accept reasonable risks to his or her person and property that are not acceptable in the exercise of commercial or airline transport pilot privileges, and, at the same time, considers the need to protect the safety of persons and property in other aircraft and on the ground.

Despite this “freedom” paragraph, my letter makes no mention of the fact I’ve sought a 3rd class medical (for private pilots versus commercial ones), and I’m curious why a private trans*pilot can’t just be left alone, using this paragraph as FAA rationale.

So anyway, we have these twin rationales, a) that people with gender issues may not be able to perform their duties as pilots and b) that people with gender issues may pose a threat to public safety. These two dubious claims lie at the core of the “conclusion” stated in my letter, namely that gender identity disorder is inherently a disqualifying condition that causes trans* pilots to have to go through this nonsense in order to keep flying.

I would certainly agree that people who can’t perform their pilot duties and/or who pose a public threat probably should be automatically disqualified, but what I’d like to know is just where those two assertions about trans*people come from. They cannot be based in empirical facts — I’ve looked through the NTSB accident reports and can find no mention of transgendered pilots as the cause of any incidents or accidents. Where is the hearing or the memo or the commentary that glued these twin falsehoods onto trans* people? I would love to read that rationale.

Notice on page two that an olive branch is held out: next year, if I have no changes in my current medical condition, they’ll consider removing the requirement for a letter of authorization. Fair enough, but my question is Just what is my current medical condition? I’m healthy, productive, and capable. I’m already bound to ground myself if I develop a medical condition that hampers my ability to fly, and I would think that such a rule would already apply to trans*pilots (as well as all other pilots). Does the letter mean to say “my current psychological condition,” or does it mean to include everything? The second paragraph says, “Because of your history of GID and GRS, operation of an aircraft is prohibited at any time new symptoms or adverse changes occur.” The word “history” is instructive here — maybe the FAA means that my history makes me suspect, and not necessarily my current state as a fairly normal pilot. If that’s the case, then how long does that “history” stick with me and compel me to carry around this letter when I fly and when I go for my next aviation medical exam?

I feel as if I’ve been branded as someone we need to watch, someone who might “get sick” again. I’m not sure what that would look like, but the GRS is a done deal, and the GID has gone away. What if I take up cabaret singing? Or take a turn towards butch-dom? Just what are these relapses that the FAA imagines might happen to me? These recurring conditions constitute a third area that I’d like to understand better — did the FAA approve trans*people for flying some time in the past, but their behavior or demeanor led them into an accident, and thus triggered this rule that they have to be watched in case gender issues return? If so, where are those records, those stories that would provide grounding for the current rule? If they don’t exist, then does the FAA just make up random nonsense to justify argumentative nonsense arrived at via non-existent data about public safety and pilot abilities? I’m starting to think this is precisely how it works.

medical authorization, p. 1

medical authorization, p. 1

medical authorization, p. 2

medical authorization, p. 2