Cautionary Notice from OK City

midlifeflyer

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
17,073
Display Name

Display name:
Fly
There was a discussion either here or the Red Board about a "friendly" cautionary letter sent by the FAA to some BasicMed applicants, cautioning them about limitations and their obligations to self-ground in cases of medical deficiency.

Here is similar one I received yesterday. I redacted it for a bit of privacy. Parts of it are actually humorous, especially in the context of my history. I should have left in the "Dear "Mr. Mark" reversal of my first and last names :D

Considering I never received anything like this in the almost 30 years I've had medical certificates, is this something new OK City is doing?

@bbchien or anyone else with a line into medical policy?

180507 faaMedAdvisoryRedact.jpg
 
Wasn't operation of the aircraft prohibited in the advent of changes in your condition or side effects all along?
 
This is why it should have been drivers license medical. You either have it or you don't.
 
This reads like a big load of covering their hind quarters

Referring to the BasicMed letter... I wonder which of the 6 items they think that "you do not meet one or more of the above requirements"?

It would be more helpful if they said "of these items, you're deficient in #___" than to be so cryptic.

But knowing you, Mark, and how aware you are of the applicable regs, I don't see why they are trying to wrap you around an axle.
 
So, in the letter mentioning a history of “x” medical condition, do you know where they got this data?
 
Dear airman, you have violated one of the following FARs please check all that apply and submit this form to the local FSDO.
 
I imagine the aeromed guys had a meeting and somebody figured it would be a good idea to be proactive and remind Basicmed users about self evaluation. Not a big deal. Certainly not a threat.
 
I got the same letter from Mr O’Brian after my last 1st class. It’s stupid. I have continuously held a medical since 1995. I did appreciate the friendly reminder though, made me feel special.
 
"we have money to burn, start stuffing envelopes" Postal Service loves junk mail.
 
In case any of you has never held an SI medical, the OP letter's verbage is standard text on an SI letter and generally similar to what's on the back side of a standard medical certificate, which a lot of guys overlook.
 
In case any of you has never held an SI medical, the OP letter's verbage is standard text on an SI letter and generally similar to what's on the back side of a standard medical certificate, which a lot of guys overlook.
The fact that it’s already on the back of the medical is what irritates me. It’s a waste of time and money.
 
Referring to the BasicMed letter... I wonder which of the 6 items they think that "you do not meet one or more of the above requirements"?

It would be more helpful if they said "of these items, you're deficient in #___" than to be so cryptic.

They are both form letters. Mine is just a bit more specific. I suspect in the BasicMed one, it's triggered simply by something in the reported medical history. It would be more helpful to be less cryptic, but I can kind of understand why since it doesn't involve a current FAA medical.

But knowing you, Mark, and how aware you are of the applicable regs, I don't see why they are trying to wrap you around an axle.
I really don't think they are trying to do anything. For now I'm taking the FAA at its word - that's it's some quality control review thing. But that's why I asked here. One of the medical folks might know more. Besides, I doubt they know my professional background, that I represent Airmen, and post and write on regulatory subjects, or would care if I did.

In case any of you has never held an SI medical, the OP letter's verbage is standard text on an SI letter and generally similar to what's on the back side of a standard medical certificate, which a lot of guys overlook.
Yeah. It's also in the medical certificate regulations. Kind of Medical Certificate 101.

Funny you should mention SI. That's one of more humorous things. None of the conditions mentioned in my letter was the subject of an SI. Basically, all no big deal items which went through OK City without any inquiry. For example, one was my mild seasonal hay fever, something I disclosed in my first medical application and every one after. OTOH, I had an SI for a number of years for something much more serious which does have a recurrence potential and it is not one of the "conditions" mentioned in the letter.
 
I spent a few years trying to convince the FAA I didn't have a condition that was brought to their attention because my provider wrote, "There was an indication of XXX, but subsequent tests shows no sign of it." After further testing to show that I didn't have any signs of XXX, they gave me a SI. After the second annual medical after the SI issuance, my NEW AME (who wasn't an corrupt moron like my first), wrote "THIS IS A ******** DIAGNOSIS" on his letter (his exact words).

I got a letter saying "OK, you don't have XXX" but if you ever do get XXX (like this is likely) stop flying.
 
I spent a few years trying to convince the FAA I didn't have a condition that was brought to their attention because my provider wrote, "There was an indication of XXX, but subsequent tests shows no sign of it." After further testing to show that I didn't have any signs of XXX, they gave me a SI. After the second annual medical after the SI issuance, my NEW AME (who wasn't an corrupt moron like my first), wrote "THIS IS A ******** DIAGNOSIS" on his letter (his exact words).

I got a letter saying "OK, you don't have XXX" but if you ever do get XXX (like this is likely) stop flying.
One doctor says one thing, another doctor says the opposite. What’s a good little bureaucrat supposed to do? Can you imagine the horrors you caused in Oklahoma City?
 
One doctor says one thing, another doctor says the opposite. What’s a good little bureaucrat supposed to do? Can you imagine the horrors you caused in Oklahoma City?
No, all the real DOCTORS said the same thing. It was some pencil necked bureaucrat in Joklahoma city who couldn't parse the sentence in the first letter that said the first test was a false positive who thought that I "didn't meet the requirements." Every piece of documentation from the one submitted with the initial deferral from the lying turd AME (he outright LIED to me, the RFS confirmed it, and Dr. Bruce subsequently told me that the AME did things that should have gotten his designation yanked) to the subsequent tests I sent direct to OKC, to the final one that the new AME wrote, ALL SAID THE SAME THING. I did not have, nor is it any more likely than anybody else to develop what they thought I had.
 
This reads like a big load of covering their hind quarters

Referring to the BasicMed letter... I wonder which of the 6 items they think that "you do not meet one or more of the above requirements"?

It would be more helpful if they said "of these items, you're deficient in #___" than to be so cryptic.

But knowing you, Mark, and how aware you are of the applicable regs, I don't see why they are trying to wrap you around an axle.
They're all objective things, and a person who's missing one should know. But it could be more helpful for OKC to identify what they think is missing so any incorrect info could be corrected. But this seems to be entirely different from the other letter, since the basicmed letter doesn't have anything to do with a medical condition.
 
What other organization when having had a significant portion of their business ripped from them by Congress, would spend any time writing letters to try dearly departed customers they couldn’t serve properly, which is what got their butts handed to them in the first place?

Oh wait. AOPA is still sending me junk mail, too. LOL.
 
There was a discussion either here or the Red Board about a "friendly" cautionary letter sent by the FAA to some BasicMed applicants, cautioning them about limitations and their obligations to self-ground in cases of medical deficiency.

Here is similar one I received yesterday. I redacted it for a bit of privacy. Parts of it are actually humorous, especially in the context of my history. I should have left in the "Dear "Mr. Mark" reversal of my first and last names :D

Considering I never received anything like this in the almost 30 years I've had medical certificates, is this something new OK City is doing?

@bbchien or anyone else with a line into medical policy?

View attachment 63055
Except for the "recently discovered" part, I received a similarly worded letter about an item in my medical history that I reported on my very first medical certificate application, in 1991. (It was one for which I needed to get a letter from my doctor in order to satisfy the AME.)
 
You haven't worked in the federal government long if your agency haven't been reamed by Congress for one reason or the other. No branch is safe from it.
 
What other organization when having had a significant portion of their business ripped from them by Congress, would spend any time writing letters to try dearly departed customers they couldn’t serve properly, which is what got their butts handed to them in the first place?

Oh wait. AOPA is still sending me junk mail, too. LOL.

Not one to defend the FAA, but is is really fair to say the business was taken from them. Congress could have mandated a drivers license medical. Instead they wrote the rules and handed it back to the FAA to manage.

Imagine if someone on BM crashed and it was later learned that they didn’t qualify and the FAA had the ability to know or at least should have known that the pilot wasn’t eligible. Seems like congress could have reduced the FAA workload by writing the bill differently. Of course, I think if the FAA would have supported a DL medical, it might have passed.
 
Except for the "recently discovered" part, I received a similarly worded letter about an item in my medical history that I reported on my very first medical certificate application, in 1991. (It was one for which I needed to get a letter from my doctor in order to satisfy the AME.)


I got a similarly worded warning not to fly if xxx recurred, but it was something I had reported and the warning was with my medical issuance, not a separate letter and not because of a "Quality assessment". I don't know what that is but it sounds like some kind of auditing either internal or hired out to a third party where auditors comb through all their records looking for any kind of deviation from perfection.

I'm gonna guess the "recently discovered" part is not that they received new information but that someone had overlooked something that had been there all along and the verbiage should have been sent to you before. They are just dotting i's and crossing t's so that a) their auditing program looks justified and b) they are covering their butt and hanging you should you ever do something bad with an airplane.
 
Not one to defend the FAA, but is is really fair to say the business was taken from them. Congress could have mandated a drivers license medical. Instead they wrote the rules and handed it back to the FAA to manage..
Yeah, and the military could close unused/unneeded installations at their own decision, but what we got was BRAC.
 
Mark, every condition that is a deviation from "normal natural health" or the "use of medication" needs be documented in the FAA's annals as to state and waiverability. In your case, there had been no internal comment on your FAA record as to whatever it is they were acknowledging, and so your "QA" letter was their effort to simply do that. Whatever minor condition it was, is just fine, and now is so noted on your record.

It's that simple and mindless.

Quality assurance to FAA is what ISO 9002 is to an industrial company- a lot of energy and effort for....for what?
 
I believe we are going to see an increase in aviation accidents and increased insurance premiums due to basic med in the long term.
 
I believe we are going to see an increase in aviation accidents and increased insurance premiums due to basic med in the long term.
I believe that the opinion of the insurance industry is the one that is most likely to be correct, and so far, they do not appear to have seen fit to even ask whether the insured is on BasicMed, let alone raise the premiums for such pilots.
 
Aging pilot population and decreased medical standard.
On the other side is reduced incentive to avoid doctors. (See attachment.)

Even if loss rates among BasicMed pilots turn out to be higher than for the rest of the pilot population, insurers would have no reason to spread those costs among all pilots, instead of increasing premiums only for the pilot group having the increased losses.
 

Attachments

  • Driver's License Medical - Poll Results.png
    Driver's License Medical - Poll Results.png
    385.8 KB · Views: 162
The claims that the sport pilot rule was going to result in flaming death raining from the sky came to nothing. I don't see basic med being any different.


Might be better, even. If most folks use their PCP, they will likely get a more thorough exam than a class 3 requires. My annual physical includes labs, EKG, chest X-ray, etc. A PCP who knows you and treats or refers all your maladies will know more about your condition than an AME who does a cursory exam once every five (or two) years.
 
Or you can have your podiatrist, optometrist, dermatologist, or ,in some states, chiropractor sign it off for you.
 
Last edited:
Or you can have your podiatrist, optometrist, dermatologist, or ,in some states, chiropractor sign it off for you.
A dermatologist is either an MD or a DO, so I don't see any problem with that, either in the letter or spirit of the statute. In what states is a podiatrist or an optometrist considered a licensed physician? (Not saying there aren't any, I'm just curious.)
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top