@bflynn Yes, that is the position of the FAA provided on a web page. I don’t believe this is formally stated in a letter of interpretation or has been adjudicated.
The case of a deliberate gaming and just not answering in the face of serious medical disability would likely be a clear one. The unclear ones would be similar to some of the cases we read about here from time to time, e.g.,
Applicant for 3rd class has distant history of ADHD in childhood and was medicated for a while but it did not work and meds discontinued. Has been well otherwise since. Is denied after application submitted. Applicant does not want to spend the money on pursuing that full investigation which would be necessary. After checking with own physician that they have no reason to believe the applicant cannot safely operate an aircraft, eventually the applicant starts flying gliders.
Is the applicant operating in violation of 61.53(b)? I can see a reasonable argument that they are not.
Separate questions are whether such a case would ever be pursued by the FAA and whether the applicant would want to be a test case.
And of course when stating it’s position, a regulatory agency will almost always err on the side of expanding it’s authority. (Also, I don’t think the implications for gliders and balloons receive too much attention from the FAA when thinking through these issues. This type of aircraft is regarded as being less dangerous to others.)
