BasicMed changes in 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act

[Lindberg]

The FAA doesn't ask about brain tumors or lung cancer.

Yes, it does.

When you said this:


it seems to imply that you think a superior physician can do an adequate evaluation without an exam. If that's what you meant, you're wrong. If that's not what you meant, what did you mean?

I meant exactly what I said. And I didn't say he was superior. You inferred that. Which is kind of weird, since you seem to be saying he's actually inferior. I'm sorry I offended you, but it wasn't meant as an attack on physicians who still physically manipulate their patients at every exam.

 

[Palmpilot]

The FAA doesn't ask about brain tumors or lung cancer.

18x: "Other illness, disability, or surgery:"

 

[Lindberg]

18x: "Other illness, disability, or surgery:"

Not to mention 18 f & l.

 

[OneCharlieTango]

The FAA doesn't ask your doctor about those things. They ask you. Lindberg said

He can't definitively say I don't have a brain tumor or lung cancer without scans that he also doesn't do at my regular physicals.

And I said

The FAA doesn't ask about brain tumors or lung cancer.

I stand by that. Sure, there are all of the sub-parts of Question 18, but those aren't questions for the doctor. That is, the doctor isn't asked, as Lindberg says, to "definitively say I don't have a brain tumor or lung cancer."

 

[Compilot]

I think most can agree the altitude limitations in Basic Med (as well as the other limitations) don’t make much sense for a variety of reasons. Even the FAA has admitted in their recent report that there is no evidence to support the thinking that somehow Basic Med pilots are more likely to die while piloting than someone with a standard medical. if there is no medical basis for the Basic Med limitations them why do they exist? The pilot licensing and proficiency standards have not changed. So what is different about being on Basic Med? If you are not medically fit to fly then you should not be flying period. The few pilots who know they are not medically fit and still fly are just doing it without any medical at all. No rules are going to keep these folks on the ground.

I am happy to see the gross weight and seat restriction limitations lifted in the new bill. That is great news for those of us that fly twins or large single engine turbo-props. The real question is who is leading the charge to get the altitude limitation added to the 2024 FAA reauthorization bill? Where is AOPA and EAA on this issue? They kind of fell short on getting us a “no medical” option the first time around so the least they could do now is push through changes to make Basic Med less restrictive. As for the final limitation of 250 knots indicated this is the silliest one of all since it really Is not even a limit. True airspeed changes with altitude so just fly higher if you want to go faster. I am not even sure if anything other than a jet could hit 250 knots indicated at 25,000! This limitation should be removed just because it is silly. Yes I guess you could argue that there are some personal jets that are under 12,500 pounds that could hit the speed limit but then you have to ask the question what does speed have to do with a medical? Again the answer is nothing.

 

[Palmpilot]

I think most can agree the altitude limitations in Basic Med (as well as the other limitations) don’t make much sense for a variety of reasons. Even the FAA has admitted in their recent report that there is no evidence to support the thinking that somehow Basic Med pilots are more likely to die while piloting than someone with a standard medical. if there is no medical basis for the Basic Med limitations them why do they exist? The pilot licensing and proficiency standards have not changed. So what is different about being on Basic Med? If you are not medically fit to fly then you should not be flying period. The few pilots who know they are not medically fit and still fly are just doing it without any medical at all. No rules are going to keep these folks on the ground.

I am happy to see the gross weight and seat restriction limitations lifted in the new bill. That is great news for those of us that fly twins or large single engine turbo-props. The real question is who is leading the charge to get the altitude limitation added to the 2024 FAA reauthorization bill? Where is AOPA and EAA on this issue? They kind of fell short on getting us a “no medical” option the first time around so the least they could do now is push through changes to make Basic Med less restrictive. As for the final limitation of 250 knots indicated this is the silliest one of all since it really Is not even a limit. True airspeed changes with altitude so just fly higher if you want to go faster. I am not even sure if anything other than a jet could hit 250 knots indicated at 25,000! This limitation should be removed just because it is silly. Yes I guess you could argue that there are some personal jets that are under 12,500 pounds that could hit the speed limit but then you have to ask the question what does speed have to do with a medical? Again the answer is nothing.

Since BasicMed was created by Congress, there's no guarantee that either data or medical necessity will outweigh public perception.

 

[Pinecone]

I think most can agree the altitude limitations in Basic Med (as well as the other limitations) don’t make much sense for a variety of reasons. Even the FAA has admitted in their recent report that there is no evidence to support the thinking that somehow Basic Med pilots are more likely to die while piloting than someone with a standard medical. if there is no medical basis for the Basic Med limitations them why do they exist? The pilot licensing and proficiency standards have not changed. So what is different about being on Basic Med? If you are not medically fit to fly then you should not be flying period. The few pilots who know they are not medically fit and still fly are just doing it without any medical at all. No rules are going to keep these folks on the ground.

I am happy to see the gross weight and seat restriction limitations lifted in the new bill. That is great news for those of us that fly twins or large single engine turbo-props. The real question is who is leading the charge to get the altitude limitation added to the 2024 FAA reauthorization bill? Where is AOPA and EAA on this issue? They kind of fell short on getting us a “no medical” option the first time around so the least they could do now is push through changes to make Basic Med less restrictive. As for the final limitation of 250 knots indicated this is the silliest one of all since it really Is not even a limit. True airspeed changes with altitude so just fly higher if you want to go faster. I am not even sure if anything other than a jet could hit 250 knots indicated at 25,000! This limitation should be removed just because it is silly. Yes I guess you could argue that there are some personal jets that are under 12,500 pounds that could hit the speed limit but then you have to ask the question what does speed have to do with a medical? Again the answer is nothing.

I think the Basic Med limitations were to differentiate it from a normal medical for trying it out. So, over time, I hope we see them generally loosened and eventually removed.

To ME, it would make a lot of sense to just make Basic Med become the 3rd Class. No AME required.