FAA Says There Is “No Set Formula or Checklist” for Recovery
In a newly filed response ordered by an NTSB judge, the FAA identifies the factors it says govern “satisfactory recovery,” acknowledges that many originated in Special Issuance standards, and identifies six recent pilots who received unrestricted medical certificates.
The FAA supplied a non-exhaustive list covering abstinence, treatment, psychology, monitoring, social progress and other considerations.
The FAA says it can presently identify six qualifying airmen since April 22, 2024, but does not state that six is the exact total.
The FAA expressly states that no single factor controls and there is “no set formula or checklist.”
The Federal Aviation Administration has now formally responded to a National Transportation Safety Board order requiring it to explain how the Federal Air Surgeon determines whether a pilot with a history or clinical diagnosis of substance dependence has demonstrated sufficient recovery to receive an unrestricted medical certificate.
The August 20 response provides some of the clearest written statements to date about how the FAA says it evaluates “satisfactory recovery” under 14 C.F.R. § 67.107(a)(4).
It also leaves important questions unanswered.
Read the filings yourself.
P4HR is publishing the underlying documents so pilots, physicians, attorneys and policymakers can review exactly what the Court ordered and exactly how the FAA responded.
The FAA Was Ordered to Explain Its Recovery Standard
The disclosure comes in Petition of Maurice MacEwen, NTSB Docket No. SM-31029, a pending appeal involving the FAA's denial of an unrestricted medical certificate.
On August 14, Administrative Law Judge V. Stuart Couch granted in part a request for limited supplemental discovery after considering statements made by Federal Air Surgeon Dr. Susan Northrup during an AOPA presentation at AirVenture Oshkosh.
Judge Couch ordered the FAA to answer three focused interrogatories and one document request concerning the Federal Air Surgeon's application of § 67.107(a)(4).
The FAA filed its response on August 20.
THE STANDARDWhat Does the FAA Say “Recovery” Requires?
The first interrogatory required the FAA to identify the criteria considered when determining whether an airman with a history or clinical diagnosis of substance dependence may receive an unrestricted First-Class medical certificate.
Specifically, Judge Couch required the agency to explain what factors are considered beyond two years of total abstinence.
- Awareness of the underlying disease process and its dangers
- Desire to change the disease process
- Active efforts and engagement in recovery
- Sustained recovery skills supporting abstinence
- Repair of psychological and interpersonal damage
- Development of psychological skills and resilience
- Length of abstinence
- Severity and duration of the original problem
- Number of treatment attempts and relapses
- Quality of treatment
- Residual medical or neurologic complications
- Marital, social, vocational and educational progress
- Continuing professional or recovery contacts
- Underlying personality difficulties
- Recent psychiatric and psychological evaluations
- Employer and fellow-employee monitoring partnerships
- Frequent evaluations, testing and professional aftercare
“No one factor is determinative and there is no set formula or checklist.”
Administrator's August 20, 2026 Discovery ResponseAccording to the FAA, the determination instead involves a “holistic weighing” of clinical evidence using the Federal Air Surgeon's discretionary medical judgment.
That statement is now part of the formal record.
A CRITICAL FOOTNOTEThese Factors Were Originally Special Issuance Factors
The FAA cites Federal Register materials from 1982 and 1996 as support for many of the factors it identified.
But its response contains an important qualification.
The factors were “originally stated as to evaluation of special issuance consideration.”
FAA Supplemental Discovery Response, Footnote 1The agency then says those same factors have also been used in determining satisfactory recovery for unrestricted certification, which the FAA itself describes as a “distinct but related inquiry.”
That distinction matters.
Special Issuance certification and unrestricted certification are not the same thing. Yet the FAA's written response identifies historical Special Issuance materials as the documentary foundation for factors it says are also used to decide whether an airman has recovered sufficiently for unrestricted certification.
The response does not identify a separate published formula, checklist, matrix or unrestricted-certification standard explaining how those factors are weighed in that distinct determination.
THE INDIVIDUAL CASEWhat Did the FAA Say It Applied to MacEwen?
Judge Couch's second interrogatory asked whether Dr. Northrup considered any factors in MacEwen's case other than those identified in the first response.
“The FAS's office considered the above factors in evaluating Petitioner's eligibility for an unrestricted medical certificate.”
FAA Supplemental Interrogatory Response No. 2The FAA then cited its previously served expert disclosure and an earlier discovery exhibit.
On its face, the response appears to confine the agency's stated evaluation to the factors it has now disclosed.
THE NUMBERHow Many Pilots Have Actually Received Unrestricted Certificates?
The Court's third interrogatory went directly to one of the questions raised publicly at Oshkosh.
Judge Couch ordered the FAA to state the number of airmen with a history or clinical diagnosis of substance dependence who had received unrestricted medical certificates based upon established clinical evidence of recovery between April 22, 2024 and the present.
Six qualifying airmen have been identified.
The FAA does not state that six is the exact total. Instead, it says its data system cannot perform the granular search necessary to determine the complete number and that it is presently able to identify six individuals meeting the Court's description.
That distinction is important.
The response does not establish that exactly six pilots received unrestricted certificates.
It establishes that the FAA says it can currently identify six.
The actual total remains unresolved in the response.
THE DATABASEThe FAA Says Its Medical System Cannot Readily Produce the Answer
The FAA says its medical-certification data platform was not designed for mass search and extraction of airmen sharing particular medical and certification characteristics.
According to the response, the system lacks search tools capable of granular filtering sufficient to generate the exact number Judge Couch requested.
The database explanation creates another layer of unanswered questions.
- How were the six airmen identified?
- What search or reasonable inquiry did the FAA undertake to locate them?
- Are the six all qualifying cases presently known to FAA personnel, or simply six cases the agency was able to locate?
- How many records would need to be reviewed to determine the actual number?
- How does the FAA evaluate the consistency and effectiveness of an unrestricted-certification recovery pathway if its own data system cannot readily identify how many pilots successfully complete it?
The FAA's Document Response May Raise the Biggest Question
Judge Couch also ordered the FAA to produce “any previously undisclosed documents” identifying the criteria or factors actually applied in determining whether MacEwen satisfied § 67.107(a)(4).
The FAA did not identify a newly produced internal recovery standard, decision matrix, evaluation worksheet or other separate unrestricted- certification criteria document.
Instead, the agency directed MacEwen to the same 1982 and 1996 Federal Register materials cited in its interrogatory response.
That leaves an important ambiguity.
If no previously undisclosed responsive documents exist, the FAA did not expressly say so.
If those Federal Register publications constitute the only documents the FAA considers responsive, the agency did not expressly say that either.
And because the FAA itself acknowledges that those materials originally concerned Special Issuance, the response leaves an obvious transparency question:
Where is the documented standard governing the distinct determination that a pilot has recovered sufficiently for unrestricted certification?
P4HR AnalysisDid the FAA Fully Answer the Court's Order?
P4HR's review suggests a mixed result.
A Standard Without a Formula
The significance of the FAA's response should not be overstated.
The FAA has now identified factors it says are used to assess recovery. It would therefore be inaccurate to say the agency admitted that no standards exist.
But the agency did expressly state that there is “no set formula or checklist.”
A pilot seeking unrestricted certification may therefore be evaluated using numerous objective and subjective considerations, none of which is independently determinative, through what the FAA describes as a holistic exercise of discretionary medical judgment.
For a process capable of determining whether a pilot remains subject to years of monitoring or may return to ordinary unrestricted certification, the practical question is obvious:
How does an airman know when the standard has actually been met?
Pilots for HIMS ReformWhy This Matters Beyond One Appeal
Pilots for HIMS Reform has consistently argued that the pathway to unrestricted medical certification should be transparent, evidence-based, attainable and understandable to the people required to navigate it.
The FAA's August 20 response provides important new information.
We now know, in writing, that the agency says there is no set formula or checklist.
We know that numerous subjective and objective factors may be weighed.
We know that historical Special Issuance factors are also being used for a distinct unrestricted-certification recovery determination.
We know the FAA can presently identify at least six recent airmen who received unrestricted medical certificates after demonstrating satisfactory recovery.
And we now know the FAA says its own medical-certification data system cannot readily determine the exact number of pilots who successfully completed that pathway.
If unrestricted certification is an attainable endpoint, pilots should be able to know what evidence gets them there.
These disclosures do not determine whether the FAA's approach is lawful, medically appropriate, or correctly applied in the pending MacEwen appeal.
They do, however, provide a clearer view into a decision-making process that directly affects pilots' careers, medical certification and ability to move beyond indefinite monitoring.
P4HR will continue reviewing the FAA's disclosures, following the NTSB proceedings, and publishing the underlying primary-source documents as this case moves toward its September hearing.
Review the record directly.
We encourage readers to examine both the Court's August 14 order and the FAA's August 20 response in full.