CFI - FAA Medical or BasicMed

[sel2006]

Greetings,

For those folks instructing because they want to and not because they're building hours to move on to greener pastures, what level of medical do you carry?

According to the regs, unless you're acting as pilot in command you really don't have to carry anything but I would imagine most folks at least go BasicMed.

Also, I don't know if the various 141 schools or 61 companies require at least a class 3 FAA as an insurance requirement.

Thank you for the input.

 

[Brad Z]

Greetings,

For those folks instructing because they want to and not because they're building hours to move on to greener pastures, what level of medical do you carry?

According to the regs, unless you're acting as pilot in command you really don't have to carry anything but I would imagine most folks at least go BasicMed.

Also, I don't know if the various 141 schools or 61 companies require at least a class 3 FAA as an insurance requirement.

Thank you for the input.

If you're not acting as pilot in command, you still have to have a medical if you're acting as a required crew member...for example, as a safety pilot.

If you're acting as PIC, you can do a third-class medical or BasicMed, regardless of whether you charge for instruction or not.

 

[kath]

I carry a 3rd class. Mostly because I live in a place separated from the rest of the country by another country (Canada) that doesn't accept BasicMed.

This last time, I "upped" it to 2nd class, just because CFI's have a Comm already anyway, and as a "just in case someone wants to hire me" so the option is there. So that's what I've got right now. At the end of the first year, I'll likely just let it downgrade to 3rd class privileges for the second year.

 

[Ravioli]

If you're not acting as pilot in command, you still have to have a medical if you're acting as a required crew member...for example, as a safety pilot.

There's been much discussion to the contrary on this. I think most of it hovers around who is the "agreed" PIC during the hood work. But the general consensus is that BasicMed is fine for safety pilot.

[Ravioli runs away to make room for the FAR referencers to come]

 

[Clip4]

I teach at a rather 141 large flight school. I have basic med. it is neither an operational or insurance problem.

 

[Clip4]

There's been much discussion to the contrary on this. I think most of it hovers around who is the "agreed" PIC during the hood work. But the general consensus is that BasicMed is fine for safety pilot.

[Ravioli runs away to make room for the FAR referencers to come]

If you are a required crew member (safety pilot) you may not use basic med.

Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in § 91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).

 

[Brad Z]

There's been much discussion to the contrary on this. I think most of it hovers around who is the "agreed" PIC during the hood work. But the general consensus is that BasicMed is fine for safety pilot.

[Ravioli runs away to make room for the FAR referencers to come]

You're welcome to look the regulatory references yourself, but there's no confusion with the FAA on this: If you're safety pilot, and you're not agreeing to act as PIC, you can't use BasicMed, period.

If you agree to act as PIC, you can be a safety pilot with BasicMed all day long.

 

[RussR]

You're welcome to look the regulatory references yourself, but there's no confusion with the FAA on this: If you're safety pilot, and you're not agreeing to act as PIC, you can't use BasicMed, period.

If you agree to act as PIC, you can be a safety pilot with BasicMed all day long.

Correct. In addition, since you must be able to ACT as PIC, you must also meet all the other requirements to act as PIC (like endorsements).

 

[Kenny Phillips]

You're welcome to look the regulatory references yourself, but there's no confusion with the FAA on this: If you're safety pilot, and you're not agreeing to act as PIC, you can't use BasicMed, period.

If you agree to act as PIC, you can be a safety pilot with BasicMed all day long.

That seems to be bass-ackwards to me.

 

[RussR]

That seems to be bass-ackwards to me.

It kind of is. But it's because that's how Congress wrote the law, saying Basic Med can be used to "act" as PIC.

Had the regulation gone through the usual rulemaking process, involving public comment and so on, it likely would have read a little differently.

 

[sel2006]

You're welcome to look the regulatory references yourself, but there's no confusion with the FAA on this: If you're safety pilot, and you're not agreeing to act as PIC, you can't use BasicMed, period.

If you agree to act as PIC, you can be a safety pilot with BasicMed all day long.

I guess I'm confused. It seem to me that if you're acting as CFII, that would seem to obviate the safety pilot argument and and you would be back at the med requirements for CFIs. Maybe that's what you're already saying.

 

[Ravioli]

You're welcome to look the regulatory references yourself, but there's no confusion with the FAA on this: If you're safety pilot, and you're not agreeing to act as PIC, you can't use BasicMed, period.

If you agree to act as PIC, you can be a safety pilot with BasicMed all day long.

Thank you so much for confirming I was correct in correcting your previous quote.

 

[Palmpilot]

You're welcome to look the regulatory references yourself, but there's no confusion with the FAA on this: If you're safety pilot, and you're not agreeing to act as PIC, you can't use BasicMed, period.

If you agree to act as PIC, you can be a safety pilot with BasicMed all day long.

And for anyone who doesn't want to take Brad's word on this, here it is on the FAA Web site:

https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/basic_med/media/basicmed_faq.pdf

Q25: Can I use BasicMed to act as a safety pilot, rather than holding a medical?

A: Only if you’re acting as PIC while performing the duties of safety pilot. The statutory language prescribing BasicMed said it only applies to people acting as PIC. BasicMed cannot be exercised by safety pilots who are not acting as PIC but are required crewmembers.​

 

[Palmpilot]

I guess I'm confused. It seem to me that if you're acting as CFII, that would seem to obviate the safety pilot argument and and you would be back at the med requirements for CFIs. Maybe that's what you're already saying.

Isn't it true that acting as a CFII often requires acting as a safety pilot at the same time?

 

[Brad Z]

I guess I'm confused. It seem to me that if you're acting as CFII, that would seem to obviate the safety pilot argument and and you would be back at the med requirements for CFIs. Maybe that's what you're already saying.

There's no "acting as CFII" per se. You can be an authorized instructor providing flight training, but as an instructor you're either acting as PIC or not acting as PIC. If the trainee does not agree to act as PIC, or cannot act as PIC because they lack the certificate, rating, or recency requirements, the instructor by default is the PIC.

When an instructor instructs the trainee to put on a view limiting device, the instructor becomes a safety pilot, per § 91.109(c)(1). As a safety pilot, they become a required flight crew member. Per § 61.3(c)(1), they must hold a medical certificate (or BasicMed, if they are acting as PIC, see § 61.3(c)(1)(c)(2)(xiv)).

 

[Brad Z]

Isn't it true that acting as a CFII often requires acting as a safety pilot at the same time?

Being an instructor and a safety pilot are not mutually exclusive. As we all know, you don't have to be a CFI to be a safety pilot, but when a instructor is training someone under the hood, he/she takes on the role of safety pilot as well.

 

[Brad Z]

Thank you so much for confirming I was correct in correcting your previous quote.

You weren't correcting my post because nothing I wrote was incorrect.

 

[Half Fast]

It kind of is. But it's because that's how Congress wrote the law, saying Basic Med can be used to "act" as PIC.

Had the regulation gone through the usual rulemaking process, involving public comment and so on, it likely would read a little differently 25 years from now when it finally gets enacted.

FIFY

 

[mryan75]

There's no "acting as CFII" per se. You can be an authorized instructor providing flight training, but as an instructor you're either acting as PIC or not acting as PIC. If the trainee does not agree to act as PIC, or cannot act as PIC because they lack the certificate, rating, or recency requirements, the instructor by default is the PIC.

When an instructor instructs the trainee to put on a view limiting device, the instructor becomes a safety pilot, per § 91.109(c)(1). As a safety pilot, they become a required flight crew member. Per § 61.3(c)(1), they must hold a medical certificate (or BasicMed, if they are acting as PIC, see § 61.3(c)(1)(c)(2)(xiv)).

What does this mean in practice? My II and I have never discussed him acting as PIC, and all my hood time (indeed, all my flight time) is logged as PIC. He only touches the controls when I'm putting on or taking off the foggles. Are we humping the proverbial pooch? My understanding was that if I'm PIC, he doesn't even need a medical to instruct me.

 

[azure]

What does this mean in practice? My II and I have never discussed him acting as PIC, and all my hood time (indeed, all my flight time) is logged as PIC. He only touches the controls when I'm putting on or taking off the foggles. Are we humping the proverbial pooch? My understanding was that if I'm PIC, he doesn't even need a medical to instruct me.

I think that's correct as far as instructing... but if you're PIC then he's also a safety pilot while you're under the hood, so he needs a medical.

 

[Brad Z]

What does this mean in practice? My II and I have never discussed him acting as PIC, and all my hood time (indeed, all my flight time) is logged as PIC. He only touches the controls when I'm putting on or taking off the foggles. Are we humping the proverbial pooch? My understanding was that if I'm PIC, he doesn't even need a medical to instruct me.

This is something that is not taught very well on flight training: clearly establishing who is PIC. There seems to be a general assumption that the instructor is the PIC, but that is not always the case. Many instructors just assume they're PIC, because, we'll, they're the instructor. Part of the briefing for any flight with more than one pilot sitting in a control position should be a discussion of who is PIC, and the roles and responsibilities of who isn't.

As we know, being PIC doesn't have anything to do with touching the flight controls. It means who has final authority for the safe conduct of the flight. On an airliner, the Captain is PIC even when he or she is sitting in the lav reading the paper.

And as I mentioned previously, if your wearing goggles, he's a safety pilot, and has to meet private pilot medical eligibility requirements.

 

[schmookeeg]

I instruct "on the side" and I dual-wield a 2nd class and a basicMed signoff at the moment. My current plan is to let the 2nd class lapse at the end of the year.

I've kept my ear out, but I haven't heard of any insurance companies distinguishing BasicMed from 3rd class yet, even in commercial/flight school insurance. I'd love any anecdata to the contrary, as I may still renew into a 3rd class at year's end, and insurability is a strong driver of the decision. (likelihood of finding some partners to join me in a > 6,000# airplane is the other )

 

[kath]

all my hood time (indeed, all my flight time) is logged as PIC.

Yup, normal. When to *log* PIC in your logbook is a completely separate issue from who is "serving" or "acting" as PIC. You can *log* the time as PIC whenever you're the sole manipulator of the controls in an airplane for which you're rated (for instance: single-engine land). So even if your instructor was *acting* as the PIC, no pooch is being humped in the logbook. What's being discussed here is something completely different.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This is something that is not taught very well on flight training: clearly establishing who is PIC. There seems to be a general assumption that the instructor is the PIC, but that is not always the case. Many instructors just assume they're PIC, because, we'll, they're the instructor. Part of the briefing for any flight with more than one pilot sitting in a control position should be a discussion of who is PIC, and the roles and responsibilities of who isn't.

As we know, being PIC doesn't have anything to do with touching the flight controls. It means who has final authority for the safe conduct of the flight. On an airliner, the Captain is PIC even when he or she is sitting in the lav reading the paper.

And as I mentioned previously, if your wearing goggles, he's a safety pilot, and has to meet private pilot medical eligibility requirements.

Of course, if you want to make it more complicated, recall that there is a wealth of NTSB case law going back to 1977 saying:

Regardless of who is manipulating the controls of the aircraft during an instructional flight, or what degree of proficiency the student has attained, the flight instructor is always deemed to be the pilot-in-command.​

Then there's the somewhat interesting language in 61.23(c)(1)(vi) when compared with 61.23(c)(1)(v).

 

[midlifeflyer]

I instruct "on the side" and I dual-wield a 2nd class and a basicMed signoff at the moment. My current plan is to let the 2nd class lapse at the end of the year.

I've kept my ear out, but I haven't heard of any insurance companies distinguishing BasicMed from 3rd class yet, even in commercial/flight school insurance. I'd love any anecdata to the contrary, as I may still renew into a 3rd class at year's end, and insurability is a strong driver of the decision. (likelihood of finding some partners to join me in a > 6,000# airplane is the other )

I've only heard of one so far and the underwriter reversed its initial decision.

 

[EdFred]

I love in how all their wisdom the govt made it so you aren't able to use basic med when acting in a capacity of less responsibility.

This is one of those regulations I will ignore because the drafters were under the influence of methane when this ****show was put together.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I love in how all their wisdom the govt made it so you aren't able to use basic med when acting in a capacity of less responsibility.

This is one of those regulations I will ignore because the drafters were under the influence of methane when this ****show was put together.

I think it is far more likely the Congressional folks who wrote it and even the aviation organizations which worked for it simply never gave 91.109(c) safety pilots a single thought.

 

[EdFred]

I think it is far more likely the Congressional folks who wrote it and even the aviation organizations which worked for it simply never gave 91.109(c) safety pilots a single thought.

That's why I said govt and not FAA. Still doesnt excuse the monkey and football though.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That's why I said govt and not FAA.

I was referring solely to the methane.

 

[Ravioli]

And as I mentioned previously, if your wearing goggles, he's a safety pilot, and has to meet private pilot medical eligibility requirements.

And as <-- he mentioned earlier, and you agreed with, if you agreed he is the PIC while you're under the hood basicmed is fine.

Taking it further, if your logbook entry says Dual Received and some instructor cert number, who was the assumed PIC?

Answer in terms of:
Student (pre-solo, no cert)
Solo student (has student cert, but with an instructor)
PPL holder, working dual for additional ratings and/or FR.

[Edit - Looks like Post #24 covered the question Thanks @midlifeflyer]

 

[EdFred]

I was referring solely to the methane.

Yeah but it could have easily been written to say "basic med can be substituted for all operations requiring a 3rd class" (with the exceptions for aircraft and airspace). But nooooooooo... can't do that while under the influence.

 

[Brad Z]

I think it is far more likely the Congressional folks who wrote it and even the aviation organizations which worked for it simply never gave 91.109(c) safety pilots a single thought.

Generally what happens is when someone proposes an FAA directive, it gets sent to committee, and the committee reaches out to the FAA for "technical assistance" in drafting the language they're trying to enact. Congress can choose to accept or decline the FAA's redlines. In this case, BasicMed never made it to the FAA for TA, so things like limiting to PIC, calendar months versus non-calendar months, referencing old forms, and limiting certificated number of seats versus number of people, etc, never got caught. I'm going to guess that the the hill staffers probably got some unsolicited assistance from a "not-for-profit general aviation stakeholder group" in creating the first drafts of BasicMed, but then again, who knows?

 

[Brad Z]

And as <-- he mentioned earlier, and you agreed with, if you agreed he is the PIC while you're under the hood basicmed is fine.

Taking it further, if your logbook entry says Dual Received and some instructor cert number, who was the assumed PIC?

Answer in terms of:
Student (pre-solo, no cert)
Solo student (has student cert, but with an instructor)
PPL holder, working dual for additional ratings and/or FR.

[Edit - Looks like Post #24 covered the question Thanks @midlifeflyer]

@midlifeflyer's response is absolutely correct from the context of an investigation or enforcement action in which the person acting as PIC is not immediately apparent, but simply being a flight instructor does not automatically make you PIC. Further, most folks don't record who was ACTING as PIC in their logbook, so it would be impossible to tell simply by reviewing a logbook, since (as we've discussed on this board a billion times) it's possible to log PIC time when you're not actually acting as PIC.

But if there's a question as to who was acting as PIC on a flight, and it is known that the flight was a training flight, there would have to be a significant amount of evidence to the contrary to determine the instructor was not acting as PIC. Say for example that @mryan75 was giving me a lift in his plane to another airport to pick up my plane, there would be no expectation that I was PIC (even though I am a flight instructor) since the purpose of the flight was not flight training. Now if mryan75 told the FAA inspector after the flight that he thought I was the PIC, I might have a hard time arguing otherwise. That's why the topic of "Who's PIC?" should be part of the pre-flight briefing.

 

[Ravioli]

So far the only incorrect statement seems to be that you can't be Safety Pilot using BasicMed.

Please remind me who posited that.

 

[EdFred]

So far the only incorrect statement seems to be that you can't be Safety Pilot using BasicMed.

Please remind me who posited that.

You CAN be safety pilot under BasicMed but ONLY if you are also PIC. So give up some responsibility for the flight and suddenly BasicMed is a no go. Gov't doesn't know its head from its ass.

 

[Brad Z]

So far the only incorrect statement seems to be that you can't be Safety Pilot using BasicMed.

Please remind me who posited that.

That's not an incorrect statement if the safety pilot isn't acting as PIC.

Sigh.

 

[RyanB]

Just think, if these FARs were written in plain language and void of ambiguity, there would be nothing for us to argue about.

 

[Ravioli]

You CAN be safety pilot under BasicMed but ONLY if you are also PIC. So give up some responsibility for the flight and suddenly BasicMed is a no go. Gov't doesn't know its head from its ass.

Oh, so post #4 may be semi-accurate. Thanks.

 

[Brad Z]

Just think, if these laws were written in plain language and void of ambiguity, there would be nothing for us to argue about.

There was a trend in the early 2000s to write regs in plain language. What resulted was the FAQ-style regulations that we see in part 11 (rulemaking) and Part 61 subpart J & K.

 

[Ravioli]

That's not an incorrect statement if the safety pilot isn't acting as PIC.

Sigh.

No need to sigh. you made an absolute and incorrect statement. I provided the "unless" in post #4 and you argued it. Then you said, "well, yah, if then,,"

Can you let it go?