Hypothetical - Basic Med & Insurance

[Stewartb]

Your view, and you're welcome to it. It's a certification with a more honest and common sense statement than what AME's use while representing the FAA. I'm pleased that my career Aerospace Medicine physician Senior AME supports BasicMed. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Tommar98]

Stewart : I'm puzzled and I'll gladly admit I am no expert on this. But the language of the Basic Med regulation specifically calls out certain conditions that require that one Special Issuance by the FAA be made before certifying under basic med. The OP dealt with a pilot who theoretically would have one of the specific conditions covered under that language. Are you saying that the regulation requiring the SI is irrelevant when the pilot seeks a basic Med because it's just between him and the doctor? If so that would make the entire language of the regulation useless and I think any interpretation that strips the FAA of their regulatory authority would likely not be upheld. I'm just trying to understand this better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stewartb]

I didn't say that. The one-time SI conditions are clearly stated. With SI in hand you're eligible for BasicMed and never have to deal with the FAA's aeromedical department again. For a guy who's managed SI worksheets twice a year for several years? BasicMed is a dream come true. And my condition isn't even on the one-time SI list!

My AME/BasicMed doc and my cardiologist are BasicMed fans, and both are private pilots, so they understand the big picture.

 

[bflynn]

Stewart : I'm puzzled and I'll gladly admit I am no expert on this. But the language of the Basic Med regulation specifically calls out certain conditions that require that one Special Issuance by the FAA be made before certifying under basic med. The OP dealt with a pilot who theoretically would have one of the specific conditions covered under that language. Are you saying that the regulation requiring the SI is irrelevant when the pilot seeks a basic Med because it's just between him and the doctor? If so that would make the entire language of the regulation useless and I think any interpretation that strips the FAA of their regulatory authority would likely not be upheld. I'm just trying to understand this better.

If you have one of the three conditions (cardiac, neurological or mental), then you must get an SI for any new condition that develops if those conditions were not covered by your last medical.

Example 1 - you have a 3rd class and have a heart attack. You get better, get an SI and fly under your 3rd class with SI. Assuming no new conditions exist, you can switch to Basicmed when you medical expires.

Example 2 - you are flying with an SI and third class for a previous heart attack and have switched to Basicmed. You now develop atrial fibrillation. The new condition of the afib requires that you ground yourself and get a new SI.

Basically, if you have something happen in those three categories, you have to have a SI for it. Once you have one SI, then you're covered. New conditions require new SIs.

 

[Bill]

Basically, if you have something happen in those three categories, you have to have a SI for it. Once you have one SI, then you're covered. New conditions require new SIs.

Understood. Someday my homograft valve will need to be replaced, and when that happens, I'll have to do the SI dance again. Hopefully Bruce is still in business when that time comes!

 

[Tommar98]

Yes. That was my understanding as well. Therefor I still feel that not getting an SI for a specified condition and going basic med first (knowing your condition is one that requires an SI) would create a potential liability issue and insurance coverage issue in my humble opinion. I thought that was the OP question but I may have misunderstood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[crash7]

Example 2 - you are flying with an SI and third class for a previous heart attack and have switched to Basicmed. You now develop atrial fibrillation. The new condition of the afib requires that you ground yourself and get a new SI.

This one confuses me a bit. The "cardiac" area is: heart attack, heart disease, valve or total replacement. Afib is electrical (at least mine years ago was). Once treated, I don't see any other hoops for Basic Med.
Back then I was on a SI for a couple years while they watched me. But, that SI isn't (as far as I can tell) one of the Basic Med you-must-deal-with-FAA-again conditions.

Always ready to learn....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stewartb]

I don't know about Afib but arrhythmia (electrical) is not listed so no SI required, even if it warrants an implanted pacemaker. That interpretation was confirmed by the RFS during a local pilot's meeting. As far as the cardiac conditions go, they're specific. Many of us have cardiac issues that aren't on the BasicMed list but would still require special issuance for 3rd class medicals. There's a disconnect there. That's why some guys are bigger fans of BasicMed than some others.

 

[Bill]

Many of us have cardiac issues that aren't on the BasicMed list but would still require special issuance for 3rd class medicals. There's a disconnect there. That's why some guys are bigger fans of BasicMed than some others.

Even though I had to get the SE/3rd class once, I'm still a big fan. To maintain the 3rd class, I'd have to provide yearly the results of several expensive cardiac tests, tests that my cardiologist and surgeon don't order yearly. BM allows me to continue to fly, and for that it's a win.

 

[azure]

I don't know about Afib but arrhythmia (electrical) is not listed so no SI required, even if it warrants an implanted pacemaker. That interpretation was confirmed by the RFS during a local pilot's meeting. As far as the cardiac conditions go, they're specific. Many of us have cardiac issues that aren't on the BasicMed list but would still require special issuance for 3rd class medicals. There's a disconnect there. That's why some guys are bigger fans of BasicMed than some others.

That's my understanding as well. The only caveat is that IF the afib is deemed secondary to the coronary disease (as Bruce has said is sometimes the case), and requires treatment, then I suspect a new SI would be required. That's one area where the statute seems to be unclear. If you have a condition that requires the one-time SI, you get the SI, switch to BasicMed, then you get a new diagnosis not explicitly requiring the one-time SI but that indicates progression of the original condition, do you need to get ANOTHER "one-time" SI, or are you still covered under the first one?

 

[bbchien]

Your view, and you're welcome to it.

My license, my necessary defense. You may not recall but Sen. Feinstein took to the floor of the Senate to insure that the endorsement was changed to include the word airplane. See, she's the national shill for the Am. Trial Lawyers Assn, who do their homework. Betcha you didn't know that the very first version of the bill, like in Texas, had a specific liability exclusion for the certifying physician.

 

[Rushie]

My license, my necessary defense. You may not recall but Sen. Feinstein took to the floor of the Senate to insure that the endorsement was changed to include the word airplane. See, she's the national shill for the Am. Trial Lawyers Assn, who do their homework. Betcha you didn't know that the very first version of the bill, like in Texas, had a specific liability exclusion for the certifying physician.

I did not know that!! Not Stewartb though so, carry on.

 

[Stewartb]

You must think I have some argument with you. Not true. While I often appreciate your advice re: medical issues I'm not concerned re:your liability. Fortunately for me my AME supports BasicMed. If he stops I know a couple of others. I'm covered.

 

[bbchien]

You must think I have some argument with you. Not true. While I often appreciate your advice re: medical issues I'm not concerned re:your liability. Fortunately for me my AME supports BasicMed. If he stops I know a couple of others. I'm covered.

And I'm happy for you. I send the 3rd class guys who are getting into impossible situations out for Basic med maybe once a week

 

[Shhhh]

You must think I have some argument with you. Not true. While I often appreciate your advice re: medical issues I'm not concerned re:your liability. Fortunately for me my AME supports BasicMed. If he stops I know a couple of others. I'm covered.

My doctor signed my basic med and he is an AME and he prescribes me Celexa. He has been my doctor for over 15 years. He knows my abilities and the rules. He is not afraid of responsibility on the matter. However laying an accident or incident at the doctor’s feet is what is wrong with this country. He feels I have the capability to fly, but I make the final choice. “Well somebody else said it was ok” is the downfall of society.