Is basic med safer than third class for false reporting?

Brad Z said:
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.
Click to expand...
So... Basic Med was a creation of Congress to limit the FAA's oversight on some medical issues, specifically to provide a way for a pilot to show he/she is medically fit to fly that the FAA couldn't interfere with.

Seems like 14 CFR 68.11 is a work around by the FAA.

Am I missing something here?
 
WDD said:
So... Basic Med was a creation of Congress to limit the FAA's oversight on some medical issues, specifically to provide a way for a pilot to show he/she is medically fit to fly that the FAA couldn't interfere with.

Seems like 14 CFR 68.11 is a work around by the FAA.

Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

14 CFR 68.11 is not a workaround by the FAA. The language of that regulation is copied directly from the legislation that initiated BasicMed. (See the last two paragraphs of Section 2307 of Public Law 114–190—JULY 15, 2016.)


See also 14 CFR 61.53(b) and (c).
 
I agree the CFR 68 language is lifted essentially word for word from FESSA.

Though 68.11 does appear to be a clawback provision of sorts. I anticipate if FAA gets a Hotline call or NDR match (not limited to), the pilot starts getting certified letters and potential hoops to jump. Even if they've already been flying Basic Med with a naturally expired medical and/or SI letter. The scope and magnitude of the hoops are unclear, the reg language is quite broad.

Though reading at face value, the Basic Med definition of substance dependence (CFR 68.9a1iv) links directly to 67.307a4, but appears to be bounded within:

-"Limited to established medical history or clinical diagnosis"

-Within the previous 2 years

But the 68.11 language is essentially unbounded so I don't take much comfort in this. Not clear what they do if the 68.11 "trigger points" are more than 2 years old.
 
00J said:
I agree the CFR 68 language is lifted essentially word for word from FESSA.

Though 68.11 does appear to be a clawback provision of sorts. I anticipate if FAA gets a Hotline call or NDR match (not limited to), the pilot starts getting certified letters and potential hoops to jump. Even if they've already been flying Basic Med with a naturally expired medical and/or SI letter. The scope and magnitude of the hoops are unclear, the reg language is quite broad.

Though reading at face value, the Basic Med definition of substance dependence (CFR 68.9a1iv) links directly to 67.307a4, but appears to be bounded within:

-"Limited to established medical history or clinical diagnosis"

-Within the previous 2 years

But the 68.11 language is essentially unbounded so I don't take much comfort in this. Not clear what they do if the 68.11 "trigger points" are more than 2 years old.
Click to expand...
"Clawing back" features of the legislation have been attributed to an influential senator (who has since passed away).
 
As noted 68.11 comes word for word from the statute that created BasicMed.

That said, it doesn’t matter if you’re BasicMed, sport pilot, glider, whatever…if the FAA gets a hotline complaint regarding a matter of aviation safety, the FAA is obligated to investigate.
 
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 do. He's a 121 pilot for Delta. His then soon-to-be ex-wife called the anon number and reported that he was suicidal. He tried explaining to the FAA that he's currently going through a nasty divorce and this was a false report from the ex-wife. While the person he spoke with seemed understanding, and even informed him "You have no idea how many of these calls we get from disgruntled exes, so we get it. Unfortunately, we have to investigate every claim we get."

Thus he was required to undergo a psych evaluation, to which the claims were determined to be unfounded (shocker). Not after having to spend thousands on the evaluation though.
 
Jon Wilder said:
I do. He's a 121 pilot for Delta. His then soon-to-be ex-wife called the anon number and reported that he was suicidal. He tried explaining to the FAA that he's currently going through a nasty divorce and this was a false report from the ex-wife. While the person he spoke with seemed understanding, and even informed him "You have no idea how many of these calls we get from disgruntled exes, so we get it. Unfortunately, we have to investigate every claim we get."

Thus he was required to undergo a psych evaluation, to which the claims were determined to be unfounded (shocker). Not after having to spend thousands on the evaluation though.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Two fears:

-Having to pay out of your own pocket to "prove us wrong."

-Unpublished internal processes/rules/criteria (which may diverge from current medical standards)
 
Brad Z said:
As noted 68.11 comes word for word from the statute that created BasicMed.

That said, it doesn’t matter if you’re BasicMed, sport pilot, glider, whatever…if the FAA gets a hotline complaint regarding a matter of aviation safety, the FAA is obligated to investigate.
Click to expand...
Thank you @Brad Z. Understood about hotline investigations.

Related question: CFR 68.9(a)(1)(iv) defines substance dependence "within the previous two years." What happens if a Basic Med pilot has an NDR match (no hotline call) for a motor vehicle action more than 2 years ago?
 
Not Brad, but HIMS AME: the questions would be,
(1) does he still have a valid DL, and at time of his last application for medical certificate,
(2) did he Lie and omit a DL action which was alcohol related, e.g was the Basic considered valid from false pretenses?
 
Last edited:
AAT said:
What happens if a Basic Med pilot has an NDR match (no hotline call) for a motor vehicle action more than 2 years ago?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are asking. Tacking on to Bruce's questions...
• Are you talking about a motor vehicle action which occurred after the BasicMed CMEC was filled out and signed off?​
• Are you talking about a motor vehicle action which occurred before the CMEC and was not disclosed in response to question 18v?​
• Was the motor action reported as required under 61.15?​
 
bbchien said:
Not Brad, but HIMS AME: the questions would be,
(1) does he still have a valid DL, and at time of his last application for medical certificate,
(2) did he Lie and omit a DL action which was alcohol related, e.g was the Basic considered valid from false pretenses?
Click to expand...
Let's say the pilot has not jeopardized themselves & their pilot cert, i.e. hasn't lied on anything.

1. Yes. DL reinstated. Current/valid. No DL restrictions that would prevent pilot from operating under BM.

2. No. All MVA's properly reported per CFR 61.15. All CMEC questions answered truthfully. No subsequent MVA's, medical history, or clinical diagnosis. State-licensed physician is satisfied that pilot is not substance dependent (CFR 68.9, CMEC form instructions) and signs form.

Also no history of medical cert suspension/revocation, application denial/deferral, etc.

But along the lines of OP's original question, curious what "hoops" FAA would make BM pilot with NDR match jump through given all above.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm not sure what you are asking. Tacking on to Bruce's questions...
• Are you talking about a motor vehicle action which occurred after the BasicMed CMEC was filled out and signed off?​
• Are you talking about a motor vehicle action which occurred before the CMEC and was not disclosed in response to question 18v?​
• Was the motor action reported as required under 61.15?​
Click to expand...
See also my response to Bruce above.

Pilot is fully compliant with 61.15. No grounds for pilot cert action.

CMEC form/timing: Let's say pilot meets baseline BM eligibility requirements. Does not hold current med cert (expired naturally before MVA). No history of med cert suspension/revocation or app denial/deferral. MVA happens before pilot completes CMEC with state-licensed physician. DL reinstated.

Pilot completes all questions truthfully on CMEC. Pilot has no additional MVA's, medical history/diagnosis, etc. within previous 2 years. State-licensed physician is satisfied pilot is not substance dependent and signs CMEC form w.r.t. CFR 68.9 substance dependence definition + CMEC form instructions.

Then pilot completes BM online course. FAA sees NDR match. And that MVA was > 2 years previously. FAA demands "additional info?" And...?

1. Verifies pilot basic eligibility for BM?

-Compliance with 60 day MVA reporting requirements
-Requests proof of current/valid DL?
-Requests CMEC to verify truthful answers and state-licensed physician sign-off? Or...

2. Puts BM pilot through same "grind" as Part 67 applicant/med cert holder?

-Requests same reports, records, statement(s) etc. as Part 67 pilot?
-Possible additional evals (out-of-pocket for pilot)?
-Certified letters, internal policy/processes, delays? Or...?

1 + 2 (all above)? In other words, even under BM it gets kind of tangly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top