Pilot Wins Against FAA in Medical Appeal — NTSB Slams Overreach

In a powerful June 2024 ruling, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reversed the FAA’s denial of a first-class airman medical certificate for pilot Donald Park, exposing serious flaws in the FAA’s substance dependence determinations.

At issue was a single elevated BAC test (0.207) from a non-criminal dirt bike accident. Despite no history of alcohol abuse, no prior treatment, and no pattern of problematic behavior, the FAA labeled Park as “substance dependent” and denied his medical certificate — without requesting further information or conducting interviews.

The NTSB judge sided with Park, finding that the FAA had acted “prematurely, and without sufficient information.” The decision emphasized that a BAC alone is not enough to establish substance dependence and faulted the FAA for failing to conduct a thorough evaluation.

“Sometimes, an accident is just that — an accident.”
— Administrative Law Judge Alisa M. Tapia

A Misuse of “Tolerance”

The FAA’s in-house psychiatrist, Dr. Daniel Danczyk, argued that Park must have had “increased tolerance” to alcohol because he was able to ride a dirt bike before crashing. But Park’s expert, Dr. Leonard Weiss — a board-certified addiction psychiatrist — testified that this was not medically appropriate. Weiss stated:

“A BAC alone does not tell you anything... it’s a huge inference.”
— Dr. Leonard Weiss

Dr. Weiss explained that tolerance must develop over time and that interpreting a single accident as proof of substance dependence is “not consistent with the DSM or FAA medical standards.”

Legal and Policy Implications

This case confirms that a high BAC — even above 0.20 — is not, on its own, evidence of substance dependence under the FAA’s regulatory framework. The ruling sets a powerful precedent: FAA decisions based solely on numerical thresholds without context or corroboration are medically and legally unsound.

The ruling also indirectly references current FAA policy leadership. Dr. Danczyk testified that his interpretation of “tolerance” was guided by the views of FAA officials Dr. Flynn and Dr. David Dumstorf — the same figures frequently named in P4HR investigations into unjust denials, retaliation, and medical mischaracterizations.

A Precedent for Reform

Captain Park’s victory highlights everything the Pilots for HIMS Reform Act of 2025 is designed to fix. The case underscores the need for:

• Independent oversight (Sec. 101–104) to prevent unilateral and unsupported decisions.
• Modernized diagnostic standards (Sec. 305) to end lifetime labels based on outdated or arbitrary criteria.
• Protections for professionals who dissent (Sec. 413–414) from coercion or retaliation when they challenge bad policy.

Administrative Law Judge Tapia also pointed out that the FAA made no effort to obtain more information — even after Park offered it. The judge emphasized that medical determinations require depth, not shortcuts.

Read the Full Decision

📄 Donald Park v. FAA – NTSB Reversal (2024)

This is more than a personal victory — it’s a turning point. We stand with Captain Park and every pilot unjustly labeled or silenced. Let this ruling be the catalyst for change across aviation medicine.

Want to help change the system? Subscribe or contact us.