Decisions

CAT File No. O-2222-17
MoT File No. 5802-057836 (PARLP)

CIVIL AVIATION TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

Jens Peter Elmgreen, Applicant

- and -

Minister of Transport, Respondent

LEGISLATION:
Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2, s. 7.1(1)


Review Determination
Samuel J. Birenbaum


Decision: October 9, 2001

I conclude that a reasonable request for medical information was sent, and received, by the Applicant, that the requested information was not provided, and thus, the denial of a medical certificate was appropriate under the circumstances, and necessary in the interests of aviation safety. The suspension is confirmed.

A review hearing on the above matter was held Friday, July 27, 2001, at 10:00 hours, at the Federal Court of Canada in Toronto, Ontario.

BACKGROUND

The Applicant, Mr. J. P. Elmgreen is a highly experienced professional pilot and holder of a Canadian airline transport pilot licence. In 1996, while flying a 767 aircraft for Canadian Airlines International, he had a landing accident consisting of a tail strike on the runway surface. Following investigation of this accident by his employer, Mr. Elmgreen was removed from flying duties for medical reasons, and notification was made to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that his medical certificate was expiring at about this time, no further action was taken.

In October 2000 the Applicant undertook a new aviation medical examination to obtain a current medical certificate, and the Civil Aviation Medical Examiner (CAME)'s report of this examination was sent to Civil Aviation Medicine.

Following review of this report additional medical information was requested from the Applicant, and this was not provided. As a result a medical certificate was not issued by the Minister's representatives, and this action has resulted in the Applicant's appeal to the Civil Aviation Tribunal.

EVIDENCE

The Minister of Transport

The case presenting officer for the Minister indicated that he would rely on documentary evidence only and no witnesses would be called. Mr. Schobesberger introduced into evidence Exhibit M-1, Part I of the Aeronautics Act, indicating the application of these regulations to all crew members. Exhibit M-2 indicates the responsibilities of the Minister respecting aeronautics as well as his rights to delegation of authority. Exhibit M-3, general regulatory powers, indicates under subparagraph 4.9(a)(i) of the Act the power for the accreditation or licensing of flight crew members. Exhibit M-4, paragraph 7.1(1)(b) of the Act, indicates the Minister's power to suspend or cancel a Canadian aviation document when the holder is incompetent, or ceases to have the necessary qualifications necessary for the issuance of the document, or fails to comply with the conditions subject to which the document was issued.

Exhibit M-5 , Part IV, Subpart 4, section 404.03 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs), indicates the requirement for the document holder to hold a valid medical certificate for the category of document held. Subsection 404.04(3) of the CARs states:

(3) The Minister may

(a) request the holder of a medical certificate to undergo, before a specified date, any medical tests or examinations or provide any additional medical information, as necessary to determine whether the holder continues to meet the medical fitness requirements specified in the personnel licensing standards; and

(b) suspend, or refuse to renew, the holder's medical certificate if the holder fails to comply with the request referred to in paragraph (a) before the specified date.

The next exhibit is M-6, a binder with tabs numbered 1 to 9. Located under tab 1 is a letter from Dr. Peter D. Hopkins, Medical Officer for Canadian Airlines International, to Dr. Danforth, Regional Aviation Medical Officer (RAMO), notifying the latter of the landing accident sustained by pilot Elmgreen's aircraft. Subsequent psychiatric and neuropsychiatric reports indicate "mild to moderate cognitive impairment."

The medical officer for Canadian Airlines International, Dr. Peter Hopkins, in his letter dated November 25, 1996, to Dr. Danforth in tab 2 indicates that Mr. Elmgreen underwent further evaluation by Dr. R. Elliott, a neuropsychologist, subsequent to which the employer found Mr. Elmgreen unfit for flying due to "mild to moderate cognitive disorder".

The report of a civil aviation medical examination performed on Mr. Elmgreen on September 13, 2000 by Dr. R. Knipping indicates that Dr. Knipping agreed to sign the medical certificate but requested referral to Dr. Pfaff, the Ontario RAMO, and further indicated that Mr. Elmgreen was on a medical pension at the time of this examination. In the RAMO's assessment box on the back of this report is a deferral of assessment dated October 19, 2000.

As a result of this aviation medical examination Dr. Pfaff, by letter dated October 18, 2000, sent by registered mail, located under tab 4, requests that Mr. Elmgreen provide a full psychiatric update and full neurocognitive report on events that may have occurred subsequent to the deferral of his medical certificate following his examination in 1996. The letter states that he must submit this information by November 30, 2000 to avoid suspension in accordance with subsection 404.04 (3) of the CARs. He was cautioned that he is not fit for flying in the interim, according to section 404.06 of the CARs, a copy of which was provided to him.

In tab 5 is a copy of a letter sent by Dr. Pfaff to Mr. Elmgreen acknowledging receipt of a letter from him dated October 31, 2000 offering detailed explanation of the circumstances that occurred in 1996. Dr. Pfaff repeats his request for the necessary additional reports.

Under tab 6 is a copy of a registered letter sent to the Applicant by Mr. S. Parkin, Regional Manager, General Aviation, Ontario Region, for the Minister of Transport indicating that requested medical information has not been provided, and the suspended medical certificate must be returned to the Minister as required in section 103.03 of the CARs.

A copy of a memorandum to E. Ratford from T. Tam and signed by the Regional Director of Civil Aviation, Ontario Region, Debra D. Taylor, dated September 13, 2000, indicates that Mr. Parkin was performing the duties of Regional Manager of General Aviation, normally occupied by Mr. Schobesberger, at the time a notice of suspension dated January 10, 2001 was sent to Mr. Elmgreen.

Tab 8 is a copy of a letter to Mr. Elmgreen from Dr. Pfaff answering a number of inquiries, stating that he is still prepared to review any recent medical information as requested in his previous letters. The final letter from Dr. Pfaff to Mr. Elmgreen is copied in tab 9 with further emphasis on the need to secure the additional medical information in order that a medical assessment can be completed on the Applicant. This concluded the Minister's evidence.

The Applicant

Mr. Elmgreen was then duly sworn and asserted that he was not ill, never was ill, and should not need a medical report to prove this. He stated that past evaluations were prejudiced by false data provided in the reports of 1996, and that he was unable to obtain an unbiased medical opinion. He entered into evidence Exhibit D-1, labelled tab 13, which included a letter to Dr. Pfaff, sent by registered mail, dated March 7, 2001. Mr. Elmgreen states in his letter that:

(1) he has already provided detailed information to Transport Canada;

(2) no one has diagnosed a malady, and therefore, no course of treatment has been prescribed;

(3) that Dr. Robinow was mistaken when he stated that the Applicant was counselled by representatives of CALPA to seek psychotherapy. Dr. Robinow was mistaken in his belief that Mr. Elmgreen was a cause of the tail strike accident in 1996 because he was over-stressed;

(4) that Dr. Elliott states that Mr. Elmgreen had a happy childhood whereas Dr. Robinow states otherwise. There were a number of other disagreements between the two physicians. Mr. Elmgreen requests that his file be assessed by a pilot specifically, Mr. J. Williams to verify that he did not cause the accident and did fly correctly. A number of other contradictions in the medical evidence are described, and Mr. Elmgreen goes on to review four tests he took which he feels are not valid to indicate his cognitive status.

The Applicant includes a letter sent by registered mail to Mr. Parkin dated January 19, 2001 requesting Mr. Parkin to obtain medical data from the medical department of Canadian Airlines International, and from Dr. Hopkins and Dr. Doughty. He felt that this should satisfy the request for the additional information that Dr. Pfaff had requested from him.

In another registered letter dated November 28, 2000 to Dr. Pfaff, Mr. Elmgreen further assures him that he flew correctly in 1996, that he was not over-stressed, that he had no psychiatric disorder, and did not require psychotherapy. He indicates he satisfactorily passed a flight proficiency test which included simulation of a similar type landing on January 16, 1996, and that this is evidence showing no cognitive impairment. He cites a number of other areas of error in various reports including those of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB), various physicians, and others. He states that the doctors are misinformed about the cause of the accident in 1996 and are thus prevented from making an objective evaluation.

A copy of a registered letter received by Mr. Elmgreen from Dr. Pfaff dated October 18, 2000 confirms that the CAME performed a medical on September 13, 2000 and deemed him fit for a category 1 medical certificate, but was unaware at the time of his past history. He requests further full psychiatric evaluation and neurocognitive assessment subsequent to the 1996 episode. In response to this letter Mr. Elmgreen replies to Dr. Pfaff on October 31, 2000 by registered mail indicating the need to correct some inaccuracies and confirming that he was asked to attend a psychiatrist, Dr. Robinow, by the medical services of his company in April 1996. He passed a category 1 medical examination on May 1, 1996. He saw the psychiatrist on May 14th and was referred to a neuropsychologist, Dr. Elliott on May 24 and 25, 1996.

In the interim, flight operations sent to Dr. Hopkins an internal memo indicating that Mr. Elmgreen was paranoid, erratic on the controls, and lacked airmanship among other things. Dr. Robinow attributed the accident to his being over-stressed and suggested psychotherapy.

Mr. Elmgreen further states that he booked off sick on May 29, 1996. He says in his letter the cause of the accident may be the fact that the aircraft weighed considerably more than the flight planned weight based on an analysis of March 12, 1998.

Mr. Elmgreen feels that until corrected, the results of the TSB findings prevent the satisfactory objective reassessment of his cognitive health by Dr. Elliott. He further requests a retraction of the Dr. Robinow report because of the error in describing his niece as a murderer. Mr. Elmgreen states that when he visited his CAME he asked Dr. Davies to perform a full Category 1 medical although he only wished to use a Category 3 medical certificate.

The Applicant next introduced into evidence Exhibit D-2, a letter sent by registered mail to Mr. W. Tucker dated March 21, 2001. This ten-page letter states Mr. Elmgreen's views of why he is not responsible for the accident of 1996, and why the various reports about this accident, and about him, that subsequently emerged, are, therefore, not correct.

A second letter, to Mr. B. Bouchard, Chairman of the TSB dated October 9, 2000 indicates the errors he feels were made in the Board's analysis of his accident. Similar detailed information is provided in a letter to Mr. W. Tucker, Director General, Investigation Operations, TSB, dated October 3, 2000.

The final letter in this exhibit is from Mr. W. Tucker to Mr. Elmgreen indicating the differences of opinion with respect to the location of his aircraft on final approach relative to the three-degree approach path. The TSB felt that the aircraft descended below this path.

The Applicant then introduced into evidence Exhibit D-3 consisting of the Personnel Licensing and Training Standards respecting Medical Requirements (Standards). He argues that all accredited medical conclusions should only occur in cooperation with specialists in flight operations.

Exhibit D-4 consists of a package of copies of various letters and reports commencing with the report from Dr. O. Robinow, a specialist in general and aviation psychiatry. Dr. Robinow confirms the presence of emotional problems and recommends psychotherapy. In an 18-page critique of this report from Dr. Robinow, Mr. Elmgreen in a letter to D. Noble of ALPA dated May 1, 1999 indicates both his areas of agreement and disagreement.

Mr. Elmgreen next introduces into evidence Exhibit D-4, a fitness for duty psychological evaluation performed by Dr. R. W. Elliott, a psychologist from California. Dr. Elliott concludes that Mr. Elmgreen is not fit for duty as a commercial pilot at this time because of mild to moderate neurocognitive deficits. Further investigation is recommended along with reassessment in six months' time.

In Exhibit D-5 Mr. Elmgreen requests a copy of reports from Dr. Doughty in a letter dated May 24, 2000. Dr. Doughty could not provide this report based on advice from the legal department of his company.

Exhibit D-6 consists of a letter from Dr. W. J. McIlroy to Dr. P. Hopkins indicating the results of an MRI of the brain performed on Mr. Elmgreen on August 10, 1996, indicating some changes, but no major pathology.

Exhibit D-7 is a photocopy of medical certificate 057836 the back of which is renewed by Dr. H. Davies indicating a fit assessment on September 13, 2000, in Lindsay, Ontario.

The last exhibit, D-8, consists of the Canadian Guidelines for the Assessment of Neurological Fitness in Pilots, Flight Engineers and Air Traffic Controllers 1995.[1] Mr. Elmgreen asserts that he did notify his CAME, Dr. Davies, about his earlier problems, although this was not noted on his CAME's report, and feels that Dr. Elliott was misled in his conclusions by the incorrect report of Dr. Robinow. He again asserts that he has no medical problems and that his problems have been created by others. The incorrect conclusions result from the prejudicial report of his accident and the fact that the tests used in his assessment are not reliable.

He further testifies that his memory is not as good as it used to be, especially with respect to names and grocery lists, but that his MRI is normal, and that he has passed all his aviation medical examinations until recently. Included in his Exhibit D-8 is the assertion that neurologic assessment of pilots is imprecise, and that he feels his assessment should be performed by a flight operations individual, not just a physician. The report of the TSB is incorrect and prejudices all the physicians from giving him a satisfactory evaluation.

Mr. Elmgreen asked to introduce into evidence a taped interview with the TSB which occurred on April 3, 1996, dealing with his aviation accident, and also a simulated video approach from 10,000 feet to the runway in question. He wished to do this to support his belief that he was not at fault and that all his medical evaluations were prejudiced against him.

After careful consideration I felt it was not the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to review the causes of the 1996 aviation accident which set off the circumstances that brought the Applicant before this Tribunal. I rule, therefore, that these pieces of evidence are inadmissible, lacking relevance, and not addressing the issues assigned to this Tribunal member, namely, to decide if the Applicant had complied with a request for medical information.

ARGUMENT

In conclusion, Mr. Schobesberger for the Minister states that the request for additional medical information was properly requested and that this request was received by the Applicant on two occasions. The requested information was not provided, and thus, the notice of suspension was sent along with the reasons. The department was fully justified in requesting information about the Applicant by a qualified physician acquainted with his history, and was not obligated to depend only on the reports of 1996.

Mr. Elmgreen stated that he supplied no additional reports but was able to provide a full analysis of the previous information about him. He refused to see other physicians as they would be prejudiced by the accident and could not provide objective accredited medical conclusions. Their information would, of necessity, have been based on information which is false.

THE LAW

Subparagraph 4.9(a)(i) of the Aeronautics Act:

4.9 The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting aeronautics and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations respecting

(a) the accreditation or licensing of

(i) flight crew members, air traffic controllers, operators of equipment used to provide services relating to aeronautics and other persons providing services relating to aeronautics, and

[...]

Paragraph 7.1(1)(b) of the Act:

7.1 (1) Where the Minister decides

[...]

(b) to suspend or cancel a Canadian aviation document on the grounds that the holder of the document is incompetent or the holder or any aircraft, airport or other facility in respect of which the document was issued ceases to have the qualifications necessary for the issuance of the document or to meet or comply with the conditions subject to which the document was issued, or

[...]

the Minister shall, by personal service or by registered mail sent to the holder or to the owner or operator of the aircraft, airport or facility, as the case may be, at the latest known address of the holder, owner or operator, notify the holder, owner or operator of the Minister's decision.

Section 103.03 of the CARs:

103.03 Where a Canadian aviation document has been suspended or cancelled, the person to whom it was issued shall return it to the Minister immediately after the effective date of the suspension or cancellation.

Subsection 404.04(3) of the CARs:

(3) The Minister may

(a) request the holder of a medical certificate to undergo, before a specified date, any medical tests or examinations or provide any additional medical information, as necessary to determine whether the holder continues to meet the medical fitness requirements specified in the personnel licensing standards; and

(b) suspend, or refuse to renew, the holder's medical certificate if the holder fails to comply with the request referred to in paragraph (a) before the specified date.

DISCUSSION

There is no evidence that in his long aviation career Mr. Elmgreen has had any problems with either his employers or his licensing authority until an accident in 1996 which resulted in an internal investigation by the airline for which he flew. His examination revealed certain impairments which resulted in the removal of the Applicant from flying duties, indeed, from his job as a pilot. Four years later he applied for a medical certificate in an attempt to obtain a private pilot licence, and although certified fit by the CAME, is deferred by the RAMO pending further information.

By letter dated October 19, 2000, in Exhibit M-6, he was notified to provide this additional information and failed to do so. He said the cause of his aviation accident was falsely attributed to him and all subsequent medical evaluations using this knowledge, found him unfit for flying duties. He felt that any attempt to see other physicians, if they are informed of his past, would likewise not result in a favourable report. He thus feels justified in not pursuing this avenue but attempts to discredit all those evaluations performed on both his flying on the day of the accident and his subsequent neuropsychiatric assessments. It is obvious from the voluminous nature of the materials entered as exhibits by the Applicant that he is fixated on this course rather than on the appropriate step requested of him by the Civil Aviation Medicine Branch of Transport Canada.

The events clearly indicate that he was requested to provide the additional information and that he received this request. By his own admission he did not respond to this request and thus the subsequent suspension of his certificate inevitably resulted. It is not the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to comment on the causes of Mr. Elmgreen's aviation accident in 1996 nor to question the credentials or conclusions of the subsequent assessments performed on him by his physicians.

CONCLUSION

The Minister delegates to his appointed RAMO the duty to assess medical fitness of pilots on a regular basis. In order for them to perform their duties they must receive sufficient information from the reporting CAMEs and when this is not the case, may request additional medical information in the form of further consultations or tests. It would appear that the RAMO in this case judiciously requested further neuropsychiatric evaluation of the Applicant. Mr. Elmgreen did not comply with this request. The interests of aviation safety cannot be ensured unless the RAMO performs his duties in a diligent manner, as was the case in this instance. I conclude that a reasonable request for medical information was sent, and received, by the Applicant, that the requested information was not provided, and thus, the denial of a medical certificate was appropriate under the circumstances, and necessary in the interests of aviation safety.

S. Birenbaum, M.D., C.C.F.P.
Member
Civil Aviation Tribunal


Issued by Civil Aviation Medicine Division, Medical Services Branch, Health Canada.


Appeal decision
Faye H. Smith, Philip D. Jardim, Ronald E. McLeod


Decision: February 4, 2002

The Appeal is dismissed. Capt. Elmgreen has not satisfied this panel that the findings of the Review Member were incorrect. Accordingly, the panel upholds the Review Determination that the denial of a medical certificate was appropriate under the circumstances, and necessary in the interests of aviation safety.

An appeal hearing on the above matter was held before a three-member panel of the Tribunal Tuesday, January 15, 2002 at 10:00 hours at the offices of Victory Verbatim, in the city of Toronto, Ontario.

BACKGROUND

This appeal hearing was requested by Capt. Elmgreen to refute the findings of a review determination rendered by Dr. Samuel Birenbaum on October 9, 2001.

In the matter of the Review Hearing requested by Jens Peter Elmgreen with regard to a suspension of Canadian aviation document, pursuant to paragraph 7.1(1)(b) of the Aeronautics Act. [...] I conclude that a reasonable request for medical information was sent, and received, by the Applicant, that the requested information was not provided, and thus, the denial of a medical certificate was appropriate under the circumstances, and necessary in the interests of aviation safety. The suspension is confirmed.

Capt. Elmgreen has requested this appeal of the review determination for the following reasons:

That there was not a refusal to comply but an inability to do so in the present circumstances, that procedural fairness and natural justice to present evidence was denied, and that the Minister's representative, Dr. Pfaff, erred in law as concerns the Canadian Aviation Regulations and the listed requirements, and that Dr. Pfaff required more of this pilot than of other pilot applicants.

At the commencement of the hearing, Capt. Elmgreen sought to make additional arguments regarding the introduction of evidence at the appeal and was advised by Mrs. Smith that this motion had been ruled upon on January 9, 2002 as follows:

The Civil Aviation Tribunal acknowledges receipt of your requests dated December 6, 2001 and January 7, 2002.

Only in the rarest of cases will new evidence be permitted at the Appeal level, and I refer to subsection 7.2(3) of the Aeronautics Act (Act) which states:

An Appeal to the Tribunal shall be on the merits based on the record of the proceedings of the member of the Tribunal from whose determination the appeal is taken but the Tribunal shall allow oral argument and, if it deems it necessary for the purposes of the appeal, shall hear evidence not previously available.

Thus, in accordance with subsection 7.2(3) of the Act, the Appeal will proceed on the basis of the existing record of documents and transcript of the Review proceeding.

The request to introduce new materials in the letter of December 6, 2001 is hereby denied. The request for audio and video equipment and a representative from the Minister's experienced operational personnel is also denied. This decision will be addressed at the commencement of the Appeal Hearing on January 15, 2002.

The Chairperson advised Capt. Elmgreen that his request to introduce additional evidence and his request for audio and video equipment and a representative from the Minister's experienced operational personnel were denied as they were not relevant to the issues on appeal and such evidence would have been available at the time of the review hearing in any event.

Capt. Elmgreen was advised that pursuant to subsection 7.2(3) of the Act the appeal hearing is based on the record and transcript of the review proceedings and that his presentation should address any inconsistencies, inaccuracies or misinterpretations as they relate to these records only, and that no new evidence would be allowed.

Capt. Elmgreen began his presentation by stating that he had been working diligently for the past five years in order to have the Transportation Safety Board's findings regarding a tail strike of a Canadian Airlines aircraft while landing at Halifax International Airport under Capt. Elmgreen's command changed so that those findings did not reflect adversely on the pilot. He said that because of the aircraft accident in 1996 he subsequently was requested by the company to undergo medical testing. Part of this testing included psychological evaluation and based on this testing he was found to be unfit for commercial flight activities, based on mild to moderate neurocognitive deficiencies. Dr. Robert Elliott carried out this testing.

Capt. Elmgreen was reminded by the Chairperson that his remarks should be restricted to the findings of the review determination itself and that events that had occurred five years previously did not have any direct bearing on the appeal hearing.

Capt. Elmgreen stated that he currently enjoys the same level of health as he did prior to the aircraft accident in 1996. He stated that although he respected Dr. Elliott as a doctor, in his opinion the report was incorrect and written in such a way to allow Canadian Airlines to find him medically unfit to fly. Capt. Elmgreen stated that subsection 404.04(3) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) states:

(3) The Minister may
(a) request the holder of a medical certificate to undergo, before a specified date, any medical testing or examination or provide any additional medical information, as necessary to determine whether the holder continues to meet the medical fitness requirements specified in the personnel licensing standards;
[...]

He said that it is important to recognize the "or" in this sentence which allows him to provide information other than that requested in order to justify the holding of his medical certificate.

Capt. Elmgreen was asked by Mr. Jardim why he did not wish to comply with the request from the Minister to undergo further psychological testing in order to satisfy the requirements to have his medical certificate reinstated. Capt. Elmgreen stated that any additional psychiatric testing by himself would have to be done at his expense. It was his opinion that since he is still the same person now as he was before the aircraft accident in 1996, he assumed that they would reach the same conclusions as were reached on him in 1996; therefore, he was not going to have this done.

A prepared statement by Capt. Elmgreen recording his objections to some of the evidence given during the review hearing was accepted for information purposes at the end of the appeal hearing.

The Respondent - Minister of Transport

Acting on behalf of the Minister, Mr. Rick Schobesberger produced a written submission which he then went on to orally highlight. Mr. Schobesberger stated that the Minister did have the authority, under the CARs Part IV Personnel Licensing and Training, Subpart 4, paragraph 404.04(2)(a). Capt. Elmgreen was requested to provide additional medical information and in failing to do so the Minister did have the authority to suspend his medical certificate under provisions of section 7.1 of the Aeronautics Act. Mr. Schobesberger did state that if Capt. Elmgreen would comply with the submission of the additional requested medical information the Minister could then reconsider the case.

Capt. Elmgreen had his medical certificate renewed following an examination by Dr. Davies in September, 2000. A subsequent review of this medical examination report by the Regional Aviation Medical Officer (RAMO), Dr. Pfaff, resulted in the request for further medical information, specifically further neurological testing. This was based on reports dating back to examinations done in 1996 at which time Capt. Elmgreen was found to be medically unfit for commercial flying by Canadian Airlines, following a report from Dr. Elliott.

Capt. Elmgreen, during the appeal, disputed the previous findings of Dr. Elliott stating that they were incorrect. Capt. Elmgreen's statements were based on his own opinion, and he did not offer any qualified independent assessment or report to contradict the report of Dr. Elliott.

DISCUSSION

This case is quite straightforward. It has been shown that the Minister does have the authority to request additional information before approving a medical certificate. If the document holder does not provide the requested information, the medical certificate can then be suspended. Capt. Elmgreen has refused to supply the requested additional medical information (i.e., further psychological testing). In fact under direct questioning, Capt. Elmgreen has admitted that he will not do so as he feels that the tests will give the same findings as they did in 1996 because he is the same person now as he was then.

DETERMINATION

The Appeal is dismissed. Capt. Elmgreen has not satisfied this panel that the findings of the Review Member were incorrect. Accordingly, the panel upholds the Review Determination that the denial of a medical certificate was appropriate under the circumstances, and necessary in the interests of aviation safety.

Reasons for appeal determination by:

Dr. Ronald McLeod, Member

Concurred:

Faye Smith, Chairperson
Philip D. Jardim, Member