Judge Tapia Must Be Held Accountable: The NTSB’s Indifference Is Dangerous

By Pilots for HIMS Reform (P4HR)

The NTSB’s recent ruling in Lt. Col. Martin Barnard’s appeal is more than a bad decision — it is a dangerous precedent for every pilot, controller, and aviation professional. Judge Alisa Tapia ignored objective evidence, binding precedent, and the plain text of FAA regulations to uphold a denial that should never have stood.

P4HR is calling for immediate accountability: reversal of this decision, formal review of Judge Tapia’s fitness to preside over airman medical cases, and congressional oversight to ensure this abuse does not happen again.

✅ The Evidence Was Clear — and Ignored

58 Clean Tests & Four Years of Abstinence

Both parties stipulated that Barnard took 58 drug/alcohol tests — all negative — across 2021–2025. FAA regulations (14 C.F.R. §§ 67.107, 67.207, 67.307) require “sustained total abstinence of not less than the preceding two years.” Barnard exceeded this standard.

Military & Airline Performance

Barnard safely flew KC-135 missions for the Air National Guard under waiver, held a top-secret security clearance, and maintained perfect professional performance. If the Department of Defense trusts him to instruct tanker pilots, why can’t the FAA trust him with a first-class medical?

Expert Testimony Favoring Barnard

Judge Tapia herself admitted: “I found Dr. Gitlow equally persuasive as Dr. Burgdorff…” Under a preponderance of evidence standard, “equally persuasive” means the petitioner met his burden. Tapia ruled against him anyway.

Amsterdam Incident Misused

Barnard bought beer labeled “0.0%,” had no intoxicating effect, and self-disclosed to his AME the next day. Even the FAA’s expert testified it was not technically relapse — yet Tapia used it as a cornerstone for denial.

⚖️ Legal Standards Were Cast Aside

Loper Bright & the APA

Barnard’s counsel cited the Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision, which ended blind deference to agency discretion. Tapia refused to apply it, treating “satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon” as an unreviewable standard. That is not adjudication — that is rubber-stamping.

Regulatory Mandate Ignored

Part 67 does not give the FAA indefinite veto power over a pilot’s career. Once recovery is proven by two years of abstinence, certification is mandatory. Tapia’s decision effectively rewrote the regulation to say, “when the FAA feels like it.”

🚨 Why This Ruling is Dangerous

• Erodes Trust: If perfect compliance still results in denial, why would any pilot self-disclose early?
• Creates Financial Harm: Barnard lost years of seniority, pay, and benefits — despite full recovery.
• Psychological Toll: Being told “your recovery isn’t good enough” after four years of sobriety is punitive, not rehabilitative.
• Chilling Effect: Every pilot watching now sees that the goalposts can always move.

🛑 Accountability & Next Steps

1. Appeal to the Full NTSB Board: Barnard can petition the Board for review, which may reverse, remand, or modify Tapia’s decision.
2. Judicial Misconduct Complaint: P4HR has already submitted ours to Acting Chief Judge V. Stuart Couch.
3. Notify the U.S. Office of Special Counsel: P4HR has already filed an abuse-of-authority complaint.
4. Demand Congressional Oversight: Our Director of Government Affairs will deliver our oversight request to Congress.

📣 Call to Action

Sign & Send: Download our templates and submit your own letters. Share Your Story: If you’ve been subjected to similar treatment, contact us confidentially. Amplify: Use #JusticeForBarnard and #FixFAAmedical. Support Reform: Join our campaign for the P4HR Act of 2025, which replaces vague “satisfactory recovery” language with objective reinstatement criteria.

✈️ Final Word

Marty Barnard did everything right: treatment, abstinence, clean testing, disclosure, and safe flying. Judge Tapia acknowledged the evidence, found both experts equally credible — and still denied him.

This is not just a bad ruling. This is a betrayal of the FAA’s stated mission and the principles of due process. P4HR has taken action — filing formal complaints, engaging Congress, and mobilizing pilots nationwide. Until judges like Tapia are held accountable, every pilot remains at risk of indefinite punishment — no matter how complete their recovery.

P4HR stands ready to fight this injustice — in the courts, before Congress, and in the public square.