It's official... BasicMed expanded

Half Fast said:
FIFY

But in any case,...
:cheers::happydance::rollercoaster::goofy:
Click to expand...
Actually, the FAA was all for medical reform. It was a certain class of lobbyists that scuttled it at the DOT level prior to the congressional intervention.
 
Half Fast said:
FIFY

But in any case,...
:cheers::happydance::rollercoaster::goofy:
Click to expand...
In FAA's defense, much of this had been planned for some time. The congressional mandate bumped it up the rulemaking priority list. It's not by accident that this was the first rule making project resulting from the 2024 reauthorization.
 
Next question....why would I "not" go basic med? I've been getting second class medicals.
 
AlleyCat67 said:
To my knowledge Canada still doesn’t recognize Basic Med, so that’s one issue.
Click to expand...
More generally, no other country except Mexico and The Bahamas recognize Basic Med, so that's an issue if you want to fly internationally outside of those areas.
 
So.... unpressurized airplanes (because as mentioned, pressurized airplanes are de facto eliminated by insurance usurping the regulator role from the FAA) between #6K and #12.5K. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for whoever this applies to, but I legit struggle to come up with examples that resemble the remark with enough market volume as to not be handwaved away as immaterial virtue signaling cosplaying as reform.
 
hindsight2020 said:
So.... unpressurized airplanes (because as mentioned, pressurized airplanes are de facto eliminated by insurance usurping the regulator role from the FAA) between #6K and #12.5K. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for whoever this applies to, but I legit struggle to come up with examples that resemble the remark with enough market volume as to not be handwaved away as immaterial virtue signaling cosplaying as reform.
Click to expand...
I think the 7 seat thing was a fix to the PA-32 seat problem (many PA-32s are certified for 7 seats, even if only 6 are installed). The 12,500 was to fix the Cessna 400 series twin weight issue. (I suggested nixing the seat limit all together and just limit number of occupants regardless of number of seats. Unfortunately that never made it into the final version of the bill that needed up getting signed). I suspect we will see some paperwork STCs to remove seats for Caravans and the like.
 
yeah I figured the 7 seat thing was probably that one offy nothingburger with the PA-32. I was more interested in the above #6K market.

...So a few rec use C-4xx money bags numbering in the hundreds, for whom SI-hoops are not a cost object anyways. That it? Yeah, I second post diecisiete.
 
Though I'm still able to hold a first class medical (for my day job) without difficulty, this is great news for my future full-time retirement plans.
 
Dave Anderson said:
Now if we can elongate the 3rd class prior requirement which literally does nothing to truce risk based on data
Click to expand...
The requirement is up to 18 years at this point and "elongates" every year. I understand the desire to remove the prior FAA medical requirement entirely, but I'm not sure what "elongate" does as a whole (as opposed to the few folks captured by the extension).
 
Brad Z said:
I think the 7 seat thing was a fix to the PA-32 seat problem (many PA-32s are certified for 7 seats, even if only 6 are installed). The 12,500 was to fix the Cessna 400 series twin weight issue. (I suggested nixing the seat limit all together and just limit number of occupants regardless of number of seats. Unfortunately that never made it into the final version of the bill that needed up getting signed). I suspect we will see some paperwork STCs to remove seats for Caravans and the like.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure you are correct about the change from 6 to 7. The FAA's existing BasicMed FAQ has an extensive discussion of the PA32 issue.
 
Anthem said:
insurance pretty much requires a class 1/2/3 medical for pressurized planes. So if you plan on flying any pressurized planes and want insurance - most dont/wont accept basicMed. If you regularly fly above FL180 then you'll need something more than BM. Obviously if you fly a plane that can seat more than 7 or > 12,500 then you will as well. And also if you plan on flying in to Canada, you'll need something else as well.
Click to expand...
Really? Dang, I had hoped this would allow me to move from my Seneca to a 340.
 
Interesting thread on BT. The language is AUTHORIZED for no more than 7 occupants. NOT Certified. But the GW limit does say Certified.

Maybe a big deal with the recent Chevron decision.

Next change, hopefully raising the altitude limit. Maybe use FL290, the start of RVSM.
 
Pinecone said:
Interesting thread on BT. The language is AUTHORIZED for no more than 7 occupants. NOT Certified. But the GW limit does say Certified.

Maybe a big deal with the recent Chevron decision.
Click to expand...

What does Chevron have to do with the language that came from Congress? I haven't looked at that thread but It has said "authorized" since the original legislation in 2016. Now, suddenly, it's a problem? Or just a solution in search of a problem?

I suspect the original "authorized" language, rather than "certified" may have something to do with avoiding issues like "originally" certified or STC. Or experimental aircraft which don't have direct FAA certification.
 
Brad Z said:
the 7 seat thing was a fix to the PA-32 seat problem (many PA-32s are certified for 7 seats, even if only 6 are installed).
Click to expand...
Thank you!
BM no longer requires STC for affected aircraft; good work!
For those currently benefiting, and those who may in future, your time and efforts are appreciated.
Nice job Brad, thanks!
The Piper PA-32R-300 (Lance), Piper PA-32RT-300 (Lance II), PA-32RT-300T (Turbo Lance II), PA-32R-301 (Saratoga SP), PA-32R-301T (Turbo Saratoga SP), PA-32-301(Saratoga), and PA-32-301T (Turbo Saratoga) are authorized to be equipped with 7 seats. Although the center seats may be removed and replaced by Optional Club Seats to carry 6 occupants and some aircraft are also authorized for an unmodified 6 seat configuration, all these aircraft are authorized to carry more than 6 occupants without further modification and therefore may not be operated under BasicMed. These aircraft may only be operated under BasicMed pursuant to the issuance and inclusion in their type design of a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) that restricts the aircraft to 6 seats.
Click to expand...
 
DFH65 said:
Finally I can buy that P51. I have been holding off because of Basic Med. It had nothing to do with the money. No really it had nothing to do with the money.
Click to expand...
P-82.jpg
Be unique!
 
MauleSkinner said:
Every time Basic Med is abbreviated this way, I think about when we were kids calling each other a “BM” for Big Mouth. My aunt informed us that BM stood for Bowel Movement. :rofl:
Click to expand...
“BM” definitely meant something from the other end when I was a kid in Brooklyn.
 
midlifeflyer said:
What does Chevron have to do with the language that came from Congress? I haven't looked at that thread but It has said "authorized" since the original legislation in 2016. Now, suddenly, it's a problem? Or just a solution in search of a problem?

I suspect the original "authorized" language, rather than "certified" may have something to do with avoiding issues like "originally" certified or STC. Or experimental aircraft which don't have direct FAA certification.
Click to expand...
Because FAA interpreted the Authorized as Certified. So that made it so. But Chevron means it can be taken into the courts and have them decide if it is the same.

And the point was, they used Authorized instead of Certified for seats, but used the term Certified for Gross Weight. So they seem to have known there was a difference.
 
Pinecone said:
Because FAA interpreted the Authorized as Certified. So that made it so. But Chevron means it can be taken into the courts and have them decide if it is the same.
Click to expand...
The number of people who seem to overestimate the impact of overturning Chevron by thinking an agency's interpretation will be disregarded is amazing. Determining whether an agency's actions are consistent with a statute is a very different that not caring what the agency says. It's getting almost as silly as "the AIM is not regulatory...so it's ok to disregard it."

So, what's your reasonable interpretation of "authorized by Federal law?" Mine is that is contemplates a number of legal conditions. Certification, modifications based on STCs, AFMS, ADs, official waivers, the approved documentation for experimental aircraft, the "consensus standards" for light sports. But not "the pilot decides to only fill 2 seats," especially since the number of occupants is already accounted for in both the statute and the regulation.
 
Looked up the requirements for safety pilot as I was asked to accompany a friend doing some currency work. The last time I was a safety pilot I knew I had to have a current medical but didn't need any currencies. Turns out since I had Basic Med instead of a medical, I could only be safety pilot if I were to act as PIC for the flight since Basic Med only applies to PIC. Since I wasn't current to act as PIC, I couldn't be safety pilot. If I had at least a third class medical, I wouldn't need to act as PIC and I could have been safety pilot. Crazy.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Every time Basic Med is abbreviated this way, I think about when we were kids calling each other a “BM” for Big Mouth. My aunt informed us that BM stood for Bowel Movement. :rofl:
Click to expand...
How many people realize that Basicmed is one word?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top