Willard John Spencer attempted to renew his FAA issued Third Class Medical Certificate in February of 2016.

The purpose of this exam is for a physician specifically trained in Aerospace Medicine and so designated to screen for the infirmities that come with age ie: High Blood Pressure, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Equilibrium, Hearing and Vision issues, etc. Any impropriety resulting from a pilot self-certifying is eliminated.

Spencer presented a disqualifying medical condition on that occasion and his application for renewal was properly rejected by the FAA designated physician conducting the examination.

Spencer then proceeded to appeal the findings of that physician to the FAA's panel of physicians for review via the appropriate appeal mechanism.

The FAA's panel of physicians reviewed the circumstances of Spencer's case and decided to issue a CONDITIONAL Third Class Medical Certificate known as a Special Issuance.

The purpose of the Special Issuance is to provide the FAA with a means to more frequently monitor and review a particular individual's fitness to fly an aircraft.

The Special Issuance program is designed to balance a particular individual's situation with the FAA's mandate to protect public safety.

A Special Issuance will have an expiration date of 3 months, 6 months, 9 months or 1 year from date of issue as determined on a case-by-case basis.

The BasicMed program is the result of an enormous political lobbying effort of Congress by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) which represent the interests of the majority of pilots in the United States via paid membership.

It was effectively argued that the General Aviation economy in this country would suffer if not for some alternative program, aka: Third Class Medical reform, as the majority of the pilots in this country are becoming elderly, developing the infirmities that come with age and otherwise could no longer meet the standard of and qualify for the Third Class Medical Certificate.

BasicMed can best be described as a Third Class Medical workaround and a gigantic Special Issuance loophole.

The BasicMed process required Spencer to complete the Comprehensive Medical Examination Checklist (CMEC) form and attest with his signature to the following declarations:

Airman’s Signature and Declarations

In accordance with section 2307(b)(2)(A) of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-190), I affirm that:

□ The answers provided by me on this checklist, including my answers regarding my medical history, are true and complete;

□ I understand that I am prohibited under Federal Aviation Administration regulations from acting as pilot in command, or in any other
capacity as a required flight crewmember, if I know or have reason to know of any medical deficiency or medically disqualifying
condition that would make me unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner; and

□ I am aware of the regulations pertaining to the prohibition on operations during medical deficiency and I have no medically
disqualifying conditions in accordance with applicable law.


The Special Issuance was the end result that began with the discovery of a medically disqualifying condition. That condition does NOT disappear simply because Spencer says so with his signature. Spencer then proceeded to take the partially completed CMEC to his personal physician for examination and form completion. The physician is guided by the following instructions:


BasicMed SECTION 3: Instructions for State-Licensed Physician

Comprehensive Medical Examination Checklist

This checklist is being submitted by an individual seeking to operate certain small aircraft in accordance with 14 CFR 61.113(i). This rule (BasicMed) allows pilots to use this checklist, and other requirements, in lieu of holding a FAA Airman Medical Certificate. The examination checklist may only be completed by a state licensed physician. Under BasicMed, an individual may only act as pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft that is authorized to carry not more than 6 occupants, and that has a maximum certificated takeoff weight of not more than 6,000 pounds.

As the examining physician, you are required to:

1. Review all sections of the checklist, particularly SECTION 2 completed by the airman.
2. Conduct a comprehensive medical examination in accordance with the checklist by:
a. Examining each item specified;
b. Exercising medical discretion, address, as medically appropriate, any medical conditions identified; and
c. Exercising medical discretion, determine whether any medical tests are warranted as part of the comprehensive medical examination.
3. Review and discuss all prescription and non-prescription medication(s) the individual reports taking and any potential to interfere with the safe operation of an aircraft or motor vehicle.
4. Complete the Physician’s Signature and Declaration.
5. Complete the Physician’s Information.

You should consider consulting available aeromedical resources on the flight hazards associated with medical conditions/medications, to include:

• The FAA Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners (AME Guide) at Web Link

• The FAA Pharmaceuticals (Therapeutic Medications) Do Not Issue - Do Not Fly list at Web Link

• Chapter 8 of the FAA’s Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM 8-1-1), which addresses medical facts for pilots and is available at Web Link

• www.faa.gov/go/basicmed.


The details encouraging the physician to "consider consulting..." strongly suggest that a pilot's personal physician will NOT be trained in the particulars of Aerospace Medicine. The bar of physician qualification required to conduct a medical fitness examination has been lowered, the screening criteria to eliminate medically unfit pilots has been diluted and public safety will suffer as a result. Unlike a FAA Designated Medical Examiner; Spencer's personal physician is given medical discretion and enormous latitude to certify Spencer's fitness to fly an aircraft.

BasicMed provided Spencer with the seductive opportunity to self-certify by selectively ignoring the Special Issuance facts in his case. I call that the FOX guarding the Chickens.

Whether or not Spencer's medical situation had anything to do with the cause of this tragedy is irrelevant to the fact that he would NOT have been legal to operate that airplane on September 4, 2018 without the provisions of the BasicMed fiasco enabling him to do so.

The pilot's certification under BasicMed had nothing to do with this accident. The pilot made operational errors flying the aircraft which caused the crash. This could have happened under the previous Special Issuance Medical as well as under BasicMed since neither had an influence on the crash.

You did not see the NTSB or FAA state anything about pilot incapacitation nor autopsy findings which would indicate such. In addition, the NTSB/FAA did not mention any issues seen by the passengers. Both of these findings would have been mentioned if medical issues were relevant.

Many FAA Aeromedical Examiners as well as the FAA Medical team are against BasicMed due to the invasion of their turf. It is unfortunate that they choose to make tradjedies like this a battle ground.

Brent Blue MD
Senior FAA AME (Aermedical Examiner)

Unless and until the NTSB determines that there was a medical issue relevant to the cause of the crash, this tragic event does not justify an ad hoc forum of the use of Basic Med certification.

I am grateful to see my old friend responding above, before the uninformed public launch into their "circle the wagons" approach which is unfortunately typical of events in PA. Thank you Ralph for being the voice of reason and information on this one.

"Unless and until the NTSB determines that there was a medical issue relevant to the cause of the crash, this tragic event does not justify an ad hoc forum of the use of Basic Med certification."

The pilot had flown into PAO uneventfully on four prior occasions. Yet on this trip he: a) had difficulty locating the airport, b) badly fouled what should have been a routine landing, and c) stalled out on takeoff. Clearly he was incapacitated.

This particular mishap occurred at the airport, but an incapacitated pilot could have dropped that aircraft on the community and caused property damage, injury, and loss of life. This incident demonstrates again the menace this airport poses to the community. PAO must be closed immediately.

I am curious about the portion of the article where the instructor and student are observing the airplane "porpoising" and presumably contacting(!!) the runway during the FIRST attempt. The article then says:

"They communicated to Spencer to 'go around.' As they watched, the Mooney lifted off and retracted its landing gear."

Is the "they" referring to the tower or to the instructor and student? If the latter, one has to ask why they would be communicating with the pilot (presumably over the tower frequency) during such a potentially serious maneuver...especially at a towered airport!! The FAA report seems to imply that the aircraft was already damaged before making the second attempt. Could he have survived if he had instead simply stuck the bad landing and avoided going around?

I'm not terribly interested in this issue/sequence of events, but, I am kind of puzzled by the bits of news reports that stated that the pilot had flown into PAO many times (in a different aircraft), and, other bits of news reports that made it sound like he was unfamiliar with the approaches to PAO. Superficially, it would seem that both can't be true.

@Anon, one wrinkle is that the usual Palo Alto runway is number 31. Wind was reversed that morning so runway 13 was in use, a relative rarity. Actually the same runway but in the opposite direction. Runway numbers signify first two digits of magnetic compass heading, 310 degrees or 130 degrees from magnetic north (a difference of 180 degrees). So the approach could have been unfamiliar. The eventual NTSB report will cover all the factors.

You can read the actual NTSB preliminary report at: Web Link

Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde

>> @Anon, one wrinkle is that the usual Palo Alto runway is number 31. Wind was reversed that morning so runway 13 was in use, a relative rarity. [...] So the approach could have been unfamiliar.

Thanks! That's the point I missed.

It is a matte of when, not if, before a similar incident causes loss of life in the surrounding neighborhoods. A GA airport is not nearly important enough to be located next to residential neighborhoods, even if it existed there before they were created. People and their lives come first, GA airports should be very low on the importance ladder, and this airport is particularly unimportant and unessential. Palo Alto needs to have a ballot initiative to determine the future of the airport.