No, this is not correct. On a SP ticket (or with a PP and expired medical), you only need to self-certify that you can safely complete the flight;
flying as a SP has nothing to do with the FAA requirements for third-class medicals. The standard for PPs is different - they must certify that they have no conditions that would prohibit them from getting a medical. The details of this
have been discussed at length before.
There are certainly people who fly on SP certificates that should not be flying. The same is true of other pilots - PP through ATPs - plenty of people will bend and break the rules. One only needs to watch the headlines to see examples of this. The fact that people do not play by the rules is not restricted to sport pilots. Remember that the rules are
different for SP and PP.
Pilots of liders and motorgliders have never required medical certificates, and we have flown with those pilots for many, many years.
TODR
Yes, the topic has been discussed at length, but clearly wasn't resolved in that thread. I find myself more in Bob Collins camp than yours, I must say. I think it simply comes down to the interpretation of a very vague regulation. Your statement that "you only need to self-certify that you can safely complete the flight" seems to parse the regulation language more liberally than I believe is supported. The reg (as quoted in your post) is:
"(c) Operations requiring either a medical certificate or U.S. driver?s license.
...
(2) A person using a current and valid U.S. driver?s license to meet the requirements of this paragraph must?
(i) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person?s
U.S. driver?s license and any judicial or administrative order applying to the
operation of a motor vehicle;
(ii) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman
medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application (if
the person has applied for a medical certificate);
(iii) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the
person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent
Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn; and
(iv) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would
make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner."
The language in (iv) does not explicitly refer to "completing the flight", but to operation in general. But the major flaw in your argument from where I sit is the explicit reference to third-class medicals in (ii) and (iii). The implication of those subsections is that a "medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner" is concurrent with the medical concerns in a third-class medical.
Ironically, a sport pilot that has never held a PP ticket may have less of a reason to know that a medical condition makes him unable to fly safely, simply because he has never been through the exam process.
Ultimately, I think this language will be clarified. It will either fall towards "driver's license = medical cert" or "you must get a third class medical". Perhaps they will make it less onerous, like a four-year duration, or a less-stringent exam. Or maybe not. But the more folks use the category as a last resort for ailing pilots, the more likely it is that this benefit will be seen as a loophole and "fixed".
Surely, though, "
flying as a SP has nothing to do with the FAA requirements for third-class medicals. " is just your opinion. Considering that the same subdivision mentions third-class medicals in two of four sub-parts, I think that more clarification will be needed before such a statement can be made definitively.
