Is basic med safer than third class for false reporting?

M

MountainDude

Cleared for Takeoff
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
1,466
Display Name
MountainDude
Home Airfield
KPDX
If someone makes a false report to FAA that a pilot is ill and should not fly, can the FAA stop the pilot from flying if they are on basic med?
I hear these horror stories of pilots having to stop flying due to a false report by an ex, until they prove their health fitness. For those who are worried about this and do not require third (or higher) medical, could they just switch to basic med?
 
If the pilot has a medical and the FAA revokes it, then he no longer may use basicmed (or SP), so he's grounded. If the pilot's medical has expired and he's using basicmed, they can't take action against his medical, because he doesn't have one. However, if they felt strongly enough about it, they could pursue an emergency revocation of his pilot certificate(s).
 
MountainDude said:
If someone makes a false report to FAA that a pilot is ill and should not fly, can the FAA stop the pilot from flying if they are on basic med?
I hear these horror stories of pilots having to stop flying due to a false report by an ex, until they prove their health fitness.
Click to expand...
Do you actually KNOW about a healthy pilot that was stopped from flying because of just a claim by an ex? Or just Internet rumors.

If there are no medical records or other documents that would make the FAA think the person is sick, they are probably not going to get involved. Or they may ask for a report from an AME. But if you get a call from the FAA from something like this, you just tell them I have no such medical issue as confirmed by your AME at my last medical. And then I wouldn't say anything more and see what they come back with. If they do look like they're going to pursue it, get an aviation attorney (call AOPA if you're a member) to deal with the FAA and possible Civil action against the ex. (Which would also probably look good to the FAA.)
 
Dana said:
If the pilot has a medical and the FAA revokes it, then he no longer may use basicmed (or SP), so he's grounded. If the pilot's medical has expired and he's using basicmed, they can't take action against his medical, because he doesn't have one. However, if they felt strongly enough about it, they could pursue an emergency revocation of his pilot certificate(s).
Click to expand...
Yes to this!

I know of a chief pilot who fired a new pilot FOR CAUSE, got the disgruntled "i saw him operate OUI" complaint.
The Chief was upheld but it was a heckofa fight.
The Totally anon rule has gone too far. No consequences, no damages no nuthin.
 
M20K said:
Ouch! Hope he sued whomever made the false claim for the loss of pay.
Click to expand...
As Dr. Bruce said, no consequences, no damages, no nuthin’.

But they were divorced, so at least he didn’t have to put up with her crap after that.
 
I had one FAA inspector tell me they took action against a private pilot who had a stroke and was operating as a sport pilot. His own family couldn’t convince him not to fly and turned him in to the FAA.
 
MountainDude said:
If someone makes a false report to FAA that a pilot is ill and should not fly, can the FAA stop the pilot from flying if they are on basic med?
I hear these horror stories of pilots having to stop flying due to a false report by an ex, until they prove their health fitness. For those who are worried about this and do not require third (or higher) medical, could they just switch to basic med?
Click to expand...
If a person makes a report to the FAA, the FAA is obligated to investigate. 14 CFR 68.11 specifically applies to BasicMed, and gives the FAA authority to ask for more information.

What happens to the pilot depends on what was found out. This could range from a nothingburger to referral for criminal prosecution, depending on what was uncovered.
 
I know at least a half dozen people conscripted into hims (out of work for a year or more, and now saddled with lifetime consequences) over these BS disgruntled significant other faa hotline calls.

Seems a “normal” enrollment method.
 
Tools said:
I know at least a half dozen people conscripted into hims (out of work for a year or more, and now saddled with lifetime consequences) over these BS disgruntled significant other faa hotline calls.

Seems a “normal” enrollment method.
Click to expand...
How many of those contain at least some bit of truth? Gonna be some. And if not, we'd probably see some lawsuits.
 
M20K said:
Do you actually KNOW about a healthy pilot that was stopped from flying because of just a claim by an ex? Or just Internet rumors.
Click to expand...
I happen to personally know a Delta captain whose soon-to-be ex-wife made a bogus call to the feds claiming he was suicidal. He did everything the feds asked of him, to which they found that the claims were unfounded so he never actually got his medical pulled. But it cost him a good chunk of money to go through all of that unnecessary witch hunt.

He explained to the feds about the nasty divorce he was going through, to which they told him "You'd be surprised just how many of these calls we get, but unfortunately we don't have the authority to decide which claims to investigate, so we have to investigate all of them."

Later on she admitted in family court to making that call. Don't think anything happened to her though.
 
Jon Wilder said:
Correct, but how do you plan to win if you can't prove your case in court? It would be your word against theirs.
Click to expand...
Having listed to oh-so-many trials (job in a courthouse), I've found that emotion (you know, that thing that isn't supposed to be in the courtroom) can beat facts ("someone has to pay" ... and you present a victim.)
 
Jon Wilder said:
Correct, but how do you plan to win if you can't prove your case in court? It would be your word against theirs.
Click to expand...
If we're talking about the OP where he texted the ex girlfriend. Then only the threat of the Feds coming after her for false statements (since it really isn't true) or the threat of a lawsuit might get her to retract her statement. But agree with your point that there's no real case there.

But for the Delta pilot where it was supposedly a totally made up story by a vindictive ex, wouldn't you have a case you could win for loss of pay and whatever emotional damages you thought would work for her false statements to the FAA?
 
M20K said:
But for the Delta pilot where it was supposedly a totally made up story by a vindictive ex, wouldn't you have a case you could win for loss of pay and whatever emotional damages you thought would work for her false statements to the FAA?
Click to expand...
I would think with her admission in family court he'd have a valid lawsuit. Not sure why he didn't sue her. All I know is he got the letter, and whatever the feds asked for he did, and based on the outcome of the psychiatric evaluation and whatever else they asked for, they returned a finding of the claims being unfounded.
 
Something is very wrong when an anonymous person can just make a phone call with no credible evidence and put someone through all of that. Especially these days when there are people who will do that to a stranger just because they didn't like a social media post or something.
 
cowman said:
Something is very wrong when an anonymous person can just make a phone call with no credible evidence and put someone through all of that. Especially these days when there are people who will do that to a stranger just because they didn't like a social media post or something.
Click to expand...
This is actually a much more likely scenario these days, and I am slightly concerned about it. I would love to have a youtube aviation channel, but worry about jealous people reporting me. It sounds like basic med can provide some protection.
 
As often, the challenge is balancing rights on both sides. On the one hand, nobody wants to get harrassed by their crazy Ex. On the other hand, imagine the uproar after a suicidal pilot nose dives a jet airliner into the dirt and it turns out the concerned Ex had contacted the FAA and been ignored.
 
Ed Haywood said:
As often, the challenge is balancing rights on both sides. On the one hand, nobody wants to get harrassed by their crazy Ex. On the other hand, imagine the uproar after a suicidal pilot nose dives a jet airliner into the dirt and it turns out the concerned Ex had contacted the FAA and been ignored.
Click to expand...
True.

I think maybe there just needs to be a reasonable standard of credibility- some kind credible proof or corroboration of the accuser's story before the FAA forces someone to prove their innocence. Or at least have the feds pay for the psych eval/drug testing if they want to go on a fishing expedition.

I don't fly professionally... at least not yet and I'll probably never be doing it for a living. But I've put so much time, money, and effort into being able to do this the idea that someone who has a beef with me could get it all taken away with a phone call and fake story is sickening to say the least. I can't imagine how that would be for someone who's livelihood depended on it. I know the odds are very low and it doesn't happen very often. I don't think anyone out there hates me that much... but still.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Ever sued the Federal Government? I have. Legal fees 100K minimum. Very low P win.
Click to expand...
Nope, but I've been on both sides, personally "won" one ($220K in fees in today's dollars) and the company I worked for lost one (juries cry, you lose, in PI cases) that cost us about the same in current dollars for lawyers, and that much again for the damages (sold used industrial equipment, no liability insurance, 'cuz nobody would write one.) We need "losing party pays".
OTOH, I'm about to sign up for BasicMed, I don't believe it's "less safe" (the actual exam is more comprehensive then 2/3 class), and it was a pain getting an SI, which is a "forever" thing with me.
Still may keep my 3rd, we'll see.
 
Jon Wilder said:
Not without proof, and lots of airman fear retaliation by the agency if they go up against the FAA.
Click to expand...
I think he was talking about suing the ex who made the false statements, not the FAA.
Jon Wilder said:
Correct, but how do you plan to win if you can't prove your case in court? It would be your word against theirs.
Click to expand...
Often they don't expect to win in court; the expectation is that the defendant will settle out of court. There are plenty of shysters out there who'll take any frivolous case on a contingency basis.
 
There are a lot of misconceptions about how easy it is to sue and get some money. The process contains a lot of barriers to strip out frivolous cases. There are a finite number of judges and they have to defend their calendars or they get swamped. The great majority of cases get tossed or settled for just enough money to pay the lawyers for their time, and never see the inside of a courtroom.

Suing the Federal Government is VERY hard and expensive. There are numerous legal and procedural barriers. Been there done that.
 
Last edited:
To add:

There are lots of barriers to simply discourage lawsuits. Frivolous or not. Money sought OR NOT. They can say it’s to weed out frivolous…

Relying on regulation, let’s say CLIA regs, to go after a private business, even when the business admits under oath they don’t follow the regs, is not automatically surviving a motion to dismiss (which is a low bar).

That fiasco was a couple hundred grand and 3 years.

Seen judges throw out “labor disputes” (unlawful termination) not even making it to a motion to dismiss, just tossed based on RLA. The judge just didn’t want it.

Seen the ACLU not care when the government forces religious activity upon an individual. Govt letterhead, individuals name, specific religious activity, not a grey area…

And on and on and on…

The whole notion “I’ll just sue” may not be what you think it is.
 
Ed Haywood said:
There are a lot of misconceptions about how easy it is to sue and get some money. The process contains a lot of barriers to strip out frivolous cases. There are a finite number of judges and they have to defend their calendars or they get swamped. The great majority of cases get tossed or settled for just enough money to pay the lawyers for their time, and never see the inside of a courtroom.

Suing the Federal Government is VERY hard and expensive. There are numerous legal and procedural barriers. Been there done that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, everyone seems to think this is a cost-free-no-consequence setup for a plaintiff's lawyer. Not only are there legal and financial barriers, but there are practical ones too. There may be exceptions in very large cities where you might never run into the same opposing counsel twice, but, in most, the rest of the legal community, including the judges, know who the offenders are. Plus, even if you haven't met them before, they are easy to spot.

One of the two worst I've had the displeasure to deal with used to practice in the bankruptcy arena. He had to stop because no opposing counsel would not negotiate with him because he couldn't be trusted, and the judges knew not to trust anything he said. Unfortunately, in those cases, the biggest victims tend to be his own clients. I suspect that he was taking advantage of the widespread belief that a lawyers' job is to fight tooth and nail rather than seek a resolution. The second of the two worst offenders I've dealt with was definitely in that category and screwed his clients with his nonsense.
 
Last edited:
wilkersk said:
That matrix only works "pre-marital". Once the ring is on the finger, the factors change, the bright line on the graph becomes a hazy curve and other factors become relevant. Ask me how I know....
Click to expand...
In my experience, marrying crazy is definitely worse than dating crazy.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I suspect that he was taking advantage of the widespread belief that a lawyers' job is to fight tooth and nail rather than seek a resolution.
Click to expand...

My wife is a lawyer. She handles all the litigation for a suburban law firm that mostly does property stuff. There are a lot of property disputes. A big part of her job is convincing clients that suing someone is a bad idea.

But some people are just contentious by nature, and will happily spend $20K to take $10K from someone else.

Easements are the best.

Everyone hates lawyers til you need one. Then everyone wants Johnny Cochran. Whom I met and heard speak once. The man had a gift.
 
Ed Haywood said:
But some people are just contentious by nature, and will happily spend $20K to take $10K from someone else.
Click to expand...
When I was a bailiff, one afternoon in Family Law court there was a hearing regarding division of property from a divorce. The parties were getting pretty heated, and nearly needed my intervention when their attorneys couldn’t convince them to get their tempers in check. They were fighting over a table.

The judge told me that this was the latest installment of multiple hearings, and between them, they’d spent more than $20,000 on attorneys’ fees for a $700 table.
 
ateamer said:
When I was a bailiff, one afternoon in Family Law court there was a hearing regarding division of property from a divorce. The parties were getting pretty heated, and nearly needed my intervention when their attorneys couldn’t convince them to get their tempers in check. They were fighting over a table.

The judge told me that this was the latest installment of multiple hearings, and between them, they’d spent more than $20,000 on attorneys’ fees for a $700 table.
Click to expand...
Family law disputes are a whole separate breed of animal.
 
Back
Top