Basic Med as a hedge

[Sac Arrow]

Where is that list from?

See? You already failed #5.

 

[Stewartb]

'Shirley' the FAA was aware of such loopholes when they allowed basicmed no? Is their answer: 'honor system'?

I'm totally with ya, frankly I find the utterance self-evident. Just like user fees would encourage airspace pirating, or 'certified' rules for factory built non-revenue use spam cans encourage mx pencil whipping on the affordability front, medical conditions you can't be above waterline with the FAA would be expected to result in sheathing under BasicMed. Or are am I speaking the quiet parts out loud again?

As others have said, the FAA doesn't have a say in BasicMed. Nada. No enforcement, no administration, no interference.

 

[hindsight2020]

As others have said, the FAA doesn't have a say in BasicMed. Nada. No enforcement, no administration, no interference.

Copy all, sounds like a good deal.

 

[Anonymous]

Take them at age 5, before they are diagnosed with ADHD or whatever.

I'm assuming a Class 3 can be issued to anybody old enough to sign their name

Wish I'd done that for my kid. Right now debating whether to have him lie about the "ADHD diagnosis" (made by a non-psychiatrist but for which medication was prescribed) and then do basic med thereafter and assume he never gets caught on the original medical application, or give up on his dream of flying forever.

 

[Anonymous]

Wish I'd done that for my kid. Right now debating whether to have him lie about the "ADHD diagnosis" (made by a non-psychiatrist but for which medication was prescribed) and then do basic med thereafter and assume he never gets caught on the original medical application, or give up on his dream of flying forever.

How long is the statute of limitations on that, anyway?

 

[Palmpilot]

How long is the statute of limitations on that, anyway?

I don't think there is one.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think there is one.

Wouldn't it be 5 years for the 18 USC 1001 false statement, but then they could revoke the certificates at any time after that (but no criminal penalties could be levied)? For someone flying recreationally on Basic Med that wouldn't be so terrible in the unlikely event it happened.

 

[jsstevens]

Wish I'd done that for my kid. Right now debating whether to have him lie about the "ADHD diagnosis" (made by a non-psychiatrist but for which medication was prescribed) and then do basic med thereafter and assume he never gets caught on the original medical application, or give up on his dream of flying forever.

Basic med requires a 3rd class (at least) within the last 10 years so that would only carry him for 10 years max-assuming he doesn’t get caught.

 

[redhounds]

Basic med requires a 3rd class (at least) within the last 10 years so that would only carry him for 10 years max-assuming he doesn’t get caught.

That's not correct. You have to have held a medical after July 14, 2006. There isn't a rolling 10 year lookback period.

 

[jsstevens]

That's not correct. You have to have held a medical after July 14, 2006. There isn't a rolling 10 year lookback period.

I stand corrected. I had misrememebred the 10 year thing but I think it was 10 years at the time they first allowed Basic Med (as in the date chosen was 10 years in the past).

So Basic Med would work assuming he didn't get caught on the ADHD thing. But I think its a bad idea to bet on that...

 

[Palmpilot]

...I think it was 10 years at the time they first allowed Basic Med (as in the date chosen was 10 years in the past)....

Correct (with "they" being Congress, in this case).

 

[Brad Z]

At this point you could have a 17 year old medical and qualify for BasicMed.

 

[WDD]

At this point you could have a 17 year old medical and qualify for BasicMed.

At some point I hope someone will look at that and change it so basic med won’t need a prior 3rd class.

 

[Brad Z]

At some point I hope someone will look at that and change it so basic med won’t need a prior 3rd class.

Unless the law changes, it won't be the FAA. BasicMed is hard-wired by Congress, and the requirement to have previously been issued a medical certificate is established by statute.

 

[WDD]

Yep. You’re right. What with economic recovery, covid, it would be at the extreme bottom of the list. Shame though. I wonder what AOPA or EAA’s position is on that? I don’t think manufacturers care.

 

[Brad Z]

Yep. You’re right. What with economic recovery, covid, it would be at the extreme bottom of the list. Shame though. I wonder what AOPA or EAA’s position is on that? I don’t think manufacturers care.

I think we'll need some hard data on the safety record of airmen operating under BasicMed before we can expect to see it expanded.

 

[Half Fast]

I think we'll need some hard data on the safety record of airmen operating under BasicMed before we can expect to see it expanded.

Agreed.

It’s been 4 years, and I believe something like 50,000 pilots are using Basic Med. Do we know how many of those have had medical problems that caused a flying incident?

 

[Brad Z]

Agreed.

It’s been 4 years, and I believe something like 50,000 pilots are using Basic Med. Do we know how many of those have had medical problems that caused a flying incident?

It's been three years since the rule became effective May 1, 2017, and investigations take as long as two years. It's still too early to draw too many conclusions. Look for a report to Congress on BasicMed from the FAA sometime before July 2021.

 

[Half Fast]

It's been three years since the rule became effective May 1, 2017, and investigations take as long as two years. It's still too early to draw too many conclusions.

You’re right. Three years. But so far, I haven’t even heard any anecdotal evidence the Basic might be a problem. Time will tell, but I’ll be very surprised if it turns out to be worse than a class 3.

 

[Stan Cooper]

The Federal Air Surgeon's Medical Bulletin (FASMB) has a review of BasicMed two years after it became effective. A three year review is due any time, but the attached review, though a little dated, has some interesting statistics.

 

[PaulMillner]

As others have said, the FAA doesn't have a say in BasicMed. Nada. No enforcement, no administration, no interference.

I think that's incorrect... certainly, if you fly with an expired BasicMed, and no other medical, the FAA does the enforcement. And they do administer, in that your FAA database entry indicates whether you have BasicMed or not... and in fact, the administrator at Oshkosh said that the FAA plans to improve the inconsistencies in BasicMed regs over time... which they can do by the normal rulemaking process... they still have to meet the intent of Congress, but that doesn't mean, he said, that they can't fix the inconsistencies. So... nada would be incorrect.

 

[PaulMillner]

At this point you could have a 17 year old medical and qualify for BasicMed.

You have to have held a medical after July 14, 2006

Seems like that's not quite 14 years ago? Or is there some other provision we're missing?

 

[PaulMillner]

Wish I'd done that for my kid. Right now debating whether to have him lie about the "ADHD diagnosis" (made by a non-psychiatrist but for which medication was prescribed) and then do basic med thereafter and assume he never gets caught on the original medical application, or give up on his dream of flying forever.

Lying is very bad advice... medication and medical databases are becoming more integrated, and the FAA shows no hesitancy in accessing them.

But, you pose a false dichotomy... there is a third path... get with a good HIMS AME like Bruce Chien, walk your kid through the process, and assuming your kid qualifies, your kid walks out with a medical on the up and up. Much better life lesson, too, IMHO.

 

[Brad Z]

Seems like that's not quite 14 years ago? Or is there some other provision we're missing?

It had to have been valid at some point after July 14, 2006. That means the medical could have been issued as early as July 1, 2003 if one was under age 40 at the time.