CFI - FAA Medical or BasicMed

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?

My challenge to anyone else other than Ravioli reading this thread: I will buy you a beer if you can point to any comment I made on this thread that is "an absolute and incorrect statement." I'm concerned that Ravioli may be having trouble complying with §61.103(c).
 
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.

I'm sure I'm missing something obvious of why a medical certificate is required, but 91.109(c) doesn't say anything about medical certification. For the sake of argument let's say I have a Private Pilot Certificate for Airplane, Single Engine Land. That satisfies 91.109(c)(i). 61.23(a)(3) doesn't say anything about medical certificate requirements for being a safety pilot. What am I missing?

Also just a general question, did congress pass a law for all of the FAR's? It sure seems like this whole BasicMed/Safety Pilot fiasco was created by the FAA and could be easily remedied by the FAA without congressional involvement...
 
I'm sure I'm missing something obvious of why a medical certificate is required, but 91.109(c) doesn't say anything about medical certification. For the sake of argument let's say I have a Private Pilot Certificate for Airplane, Single Engine Land. That satisfies 91.109(c)(i). 61.23(a)(3) doesn't say anything about medical certificate requirements for being a safety pilot. What am I missing?

Also just a general question, did congress pass a law for all of the FAR's? It sure seems like this whole BasicMed/Safety Pilot fiasco was created by the FAA and could be easily remedied by the FAA without congressional involvement...

Safety pilot is a required crewmember. so 61.23(a)(3)(ii) applies, and 61.113(i) doesn't say required crewmember. Only says pilot in command.

91.109 says a safety pilot is required. Then go to 61.23 that states required crew must have a medical except for in 61.113, but that only says may act as pilot in command.

It's a long way to go to draw the conclusion, but that's how it works out.
 
Also just a general question, did congress pass a law for all of the FAR's? It sure seems like this whole BasicMed/Safety Pilot fiasco was created by the FAA and could be easily remedied by the FAA without congressional involvement...

Congress authorized the FAA to create rules and regulations. But what I am understanding here is that Congress legislated BasicMed, therefore any FAA regulations need to comport with the BasicMed legislation. The FAA cannot make a rule or regulation change that does not comply with the law.
 
Safety pilot is a required crewmember. so 61.23(a)(3)(ii) applies, and 61.113(i) doesn't say required crewmember. Only says pilot in command.

91.109 says a safety pilot is required. Then go to 61.23 that states required crew must have a medical except for in 61.113, but that only says may act as pilot in command.

It's a long way to go to draw the conclusion, but that's how it works out.

Duh, I missed "or". Thanks for that!
 
Congress authorized the FAA to create rules and regulations. But what I am understanding here is that Congress legislated BasicMed, therefore any FAA regulations need to comport with the BasicMed legislation. The FAA cannot make a rule or regulation change that does not comply with the law.

Exactly. I don't believe at anytime congress created a law that addressed the concept of a required crew member or safety pilot. The DOT/FAA simply promulgated the regulations. This COULD be easily fixed by the FAA.
 
I'm sure I'm missing something obvious of why a medical certificate is required, but 91.109(c) doesn't say anything about medical certification. For the sake of argument let's say I have a Private Pilot Certificate for Airplane, Single Engine Land. That satisfies 91.109(c)(i). 61.23(a)(3) doesn't say anything about medical certificate requirements for being a safety pilot. What am I missing?

Also just a general question, did congress pass a law for all of the FAR's? It sure seems like this whole BasicMed/Safety Pilot fiasco was created by the FAA and could be easily remedied by the FAA without congressional involvement...
I'm sure I'm missing something obvious of why a medical certificate is required, but 91.109(c) doesn't say anything about medical certification. For the sake of argument let's say I have a Private Pilot Certificate for Airplane, Single Engine Land. That satisfies 91.109(c)(i). 61.23(a)(3) doesn't say anything about medical certificate requirements for being a safety pilot. What am I missing?

Also just a general question, did congress pass a law for all of the FAR's? It sure seems like this whole BasicMed/Safety Pilot fiasco was created by the FAA and could be easily remedied by the FAA without congressional involvement...

Section 61.3(c) requires a medical for a required pilot flight crew member. Since a safety pilot has to be at least a private pilot and is required when a pilot is using a view limiting device, they meet the definition.

No, not all regulations were codified as statute. Also, some laws regarding flight operations are never made into regulation (see 49 U.S.C. 44724).

When congress creates a statutory requirement for a regulation, FAA cannot create a reg that conflicts with the statute. Also, there are limited resources for rule making so unless it's safety critical or politically important, it doesn't make it through prioritization. The administrative procedure act makes rulemaking an excruciating long process that typically takes years.
 
Exactly. I don't believe at anytime congress created a law that addressed the concept of a required crew member or safety pilot. The DOT/FAA simply promulgated the regulations. This COULD be easily fixed by the FAA.
There's nothing easy about changing regulations, lol.
 
This?

My challenge to anyone else other than Ravioli reading this thread:

Can we start with your issue with writing? "Anyone else other than Ravioli" <-- where did you not learn to write. Anyone else would have excluded me. Anyone other than would have excluded me. Your sentence construction kind of sucks.

(c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft.

Let's check, for fun.

I read your statements.
I can recite them to you if you'd like.
I apparently am responding in written text, so I can write.
My understanding seems to be the cause of discourse. <- Google discourse if you have an issue with that.

I think I'm safe.
 
Last edited:
Section 61.3(c) requires a medical for a required pilot flight crew member. Since a safety pilot has to be at least a private pilot and is required when a pilot is using a view limiting device, they meet the definition.

Thanks for quoting that reg, but in my opinion that makes this situation even more egregious!

61.3(c)(1) A person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft only if that person holds the appropriate medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section provides certain exceptions to the requirement to hold a medical certificate.

Why isn't BasicMed documentation considered acceptable to the FAA?

As far as ease and resources to change regs how hard would it be to add:

61.3(c)(2)(xv) Is performing the duties of a safety pilot as set forth in 91.109(c) and has a current BasicMed Course Date and BasicMed CMEC on file with the FAA.

There, I did all of the heavy lifting, start the sundial... ;-)
 
Why isn't BasicMed documentation considered acceptable to the FAA?
Because the basic med regulations say it isn't. Why, was because the DOT stonewalled the normal rulemaking process at the behest of the AMA lobby, so Congress got involved and wrote exact terms Basic Med would be issued under which unfortunately included this safety pilot gobbledygook.
 
Because the basic med regulations say it isn't. Why, was because the DOT stonewalled the normal rulemaking process at the behest of the AMA lobby, so Congress got involved and wrote exact terms Basic Med would be issued under which unfortunately included this safety pilot gobbledygook.
...and the FAA hasn't seen fit to change it.
 
The FAA doesn’t get to change law. In case you’re unclear about how laws are made,...

My understanding is that the FAA could write regulations that are more permissive than BasicMed, but that more-restrictive regulations would violate the statute. Even if that's not the case, I think the statute is silent on the subject of safety-pilot qualifications, so the FAA could certainly write new regulations on that without conflicting with the statute.

Of course, any new regulations would have to go through the notice-and-comment process, which apparently takes a lot of time and work on the FAA's part.

If I'm mistaken about any of this, hopefully Midlifeflyer, who is an attorney, will correct me.
 
Thanks for quoting that reg, but in my opinion that makes this situation even more egregious!

61.3(c)(1) A person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft only if that person holds the appropriate medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section provides certain exceptions to the requirement to hold a medical certificate.

Why isn't BasicMed documentation considered acceptable to the FAA?

As far as ease and resources to change regs how hard would it be to add:

61.3(c)(2)(xv) Is performing the duties of a safety pilot as set forth in 91.109(c) and has a current BasicMed Course Date and BasicMed CMEC on file with the FAA.

There, I did all of the heavy lifting, start the sundial... ;-)
Interesting. The way the highlighted part is worded, it sounds like the FAA could specify through published guidance that BesicMed is acceptable, instead of going through the hurdles inherent in changing the regulations.
 
Thanks for quoting that reg, but in my opinion that makes this situation even more egregious!

61.3(c)(1) A person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft only if that person holds the appropriate medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section provides certain exceptions to the requirement to hold a medical certificate.

Why isn't BasicMed documentation considered acceptable to the FAA?

As far as ease and resources to change regs how hard would it be to add:

61.3(c)(2)(xv) Is performing the duties of a safety pilot as set forth in 91.109(c) and has a current BasicMed Course Date and BasicMed CMEC on file with the FAA.

There, I did all of the heavy lifting, start the sundial... ;-)
No, “other documentation acceptable to the FAA” refers to a being able to use a faxed authorization letter from the FAA when someone looses their medical and they need to make a flight. It’s discussed in the 1997 part 61 re-write, if I’m not mistaken. I researched it once, it’s in my files somewhere at work.
Interesting. The way the highlighted part is worded, it sounds like the FAA could specify through published guidance that BesicMed is acceptable, instead of going through the hurdles inherent in changing the regulations.
Because the preamble explains what that phrase meant, the FAA couldn’t redefine the meaning without going out for notice and comment.
 
My understanding is that the FAA could write regulations that are more permissive than BasicMed, but that more-restrictive regulations would violate the statute. Even if that's not the case, I think the statute is silent on the subject of safety-pilot qualifications, so the FAA could certainly write new regulations on that without conflicting with the statute.

Of course, any new regulations would have to go through the notice-and-comment process, which apparently takes a lot of time and work on the FAA's part.

If I'm mistaken about any of this, hopefully Midlifeflyer, who is an attorney, will correct me.
You’re correct. From what I can see, the best chance of getting this fixed is to drop it in other unrelated rulemaking, as an offsetting relieving rule, to satisfy the 2 for 1 rule enacted by the Trump administration. Otherwise, it will take another comprehensive part 61 rule making effort. The last one went into effect last summer; it will probably be a while before there’s another.
 
My understanding is that the FAA could write regulations that are more permissive than BasicMed, but that more-restrictive regulations would violate the statute.
Yes, that is correct. There is nothing in the BasicMed legislation which prevents the FAA from permitting safety pilots to operate under BasicMed or, for that matter, without any medical certification at all.

@Brad Z, you sure about the 2 for 1 applicability here? The amendment in this case would involve a reduction or removal of a regulatory burden, the goal of the policy.
 
Last edited:
@Brad Z, you sure about the 2 for 1 applicability here? The amendment in this case would involve a reduction or removal of a regulatory burden, the goal of the policy.
I understood him to be saying that the two-for-one policy could facilitate easing a safety pilot's medical requirements, if the FAA happened to want to add a new regulation on another subject. In other words, the safety-pilot change would count as one of the removed regulations needed to allow the unrelated new regulation to be adopted.
 
I understood him to be saying that the two-for-one policy could facilitate easing a safety pilot's medical requirements, if the FAA happened to want to add a new regulation on another subject. In other words, the safety-pilot change would count as one of the removed regulations needed to allow the unrelated new regulation to be adopted.
You are right. I just re-read Brad's post.
 
Can't the FAA just write the equivalent of an LOA? If you want to take advantage of it, then do. If not, don't.
 
Can't the FAA just write the equivalent of an LOA? If you want to take advantage of it, then do. If not, don't.
It would be great but contrary to the way they historically do things. The current regulations are fairly clear that "A private pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft without holding a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter..." when the conditions of BasicMed are met. Even without the FAA (albeit "unofficially") being on record to say a safety pilot needs to be acting as PIC in order to use BasicMed, it would require interpreting "pilot in command" to also mean the opposite - "not pilot in command". That strikes me as unlikely.

But I do have a "nonregulatory" idea I am passing on to AOPA if they haven't thought about it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top