Not renew 3rd class and only go basicmed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter basicmed-gal
  • Start date Start date
OneCharlieTango said:
But it's a second SI he had to get for the psychiatric thing. I wonder how this would litigate. All of the BM information says "one-time special issuance" for the specified conditions. It doesn't say "one time, unless you get something else on this list, in which case you have to be re-cleared for all of your medical past."
Click to expand...
You must get an "authorization for the special issuance of a medical certificate." How could the FAA authorize the insurance of a medical certificate if you don't meet the criteria or an exception? Make it make sense.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
But it's a second SI he had to get for the psychiatric thing. I wonder how this would litigate. All of the BM information says "one-time special issuance" for the specified conditions. It doesn't say "one time, unless you get something else on this list, in which case you have to be re-cleared for all of your medical past."
Click to expand...
Of course it is. But you are not going to convince anyone who believes that the only way that the FAA can possibly fulfill the BasicMed SI mandate is by repeatedly requiring pilots to requalify for the same SI multiple times.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I don’t see anything in that language which requires an FAA medical certificate be applied for. “Well, that’s the way we’ve been doing it when people had to apply for a medical certificate, so we won’t change it for situations where they don’t” is bureaucratic momentum, not a required interpretation of the language.

The whole concept of a one-time SI is an SI that authorizes BasicMed. I guess it’s not really a one-time SI after all, eh?
Click to expand...
But if you do not apply for a certificate you will not get an authorization. So the cert. comes with the successful authorization....in all but a very few, rare cases.
 
I can see both sides, but it would take a court to settle the matter. Even post-Chevron, I suspect a court would give considerable deference to the FAA.

In any case, until someone is willing to mount a legal challenge, the rule works the way the FAA says it does.
 
bbchien said:
But if you do not apply for a certificate you will not get an authorization. So the cert. comes with the successful authorization....in all but a very few, rare cases.
Click to expand...
I’m not disagreeing that this is the way OK City is doing it. Just that there is nothing in the statute or the regs that prohibits them from modifying the process so that it is indeed one SI per condition for BasicMed purposes.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I’m not disagreeing that this is the way OK City is doing it. Just that there is nothing in the statute or the regs that prohibits them from modifying the process so that it is indeed one SI per condition for BasicMed purposes.
Click to expand...

Think you can convince ‘em to change?
;)
 
midlifeflyer said:
I’m not disagreeing that this is the way OK City is doing it. Just that there is nothing in the statute or the regs that prohibits them from modifying the process so that it is indeed one SI per condition for BasicMed purposes.
Click to expand...
The statute refers to the process for obtaining an authorization for the special issuance of a medical certificate. What reason is there to believe that Congress intended that to mean something other than the then-existing process for obtaining an authorization for the special issuance of a medical certificate--which includes applying for a medical certificate? Congress certainly could have mandated a new process of that's what it wanted.
 
I think the nuance drives the debate.

The statutes pretty clearly allow them to make you do the whole thing, So they can, and that's the policy they have chosen.

But the statue also doesn't require it so they could easily choose to manage the SI outside the medical process, So they don't have to.

I doubt there is much of a chance that they can be forced to loosen up the process (clearly the legislative intent).

As much as the bureaucrats whine about being too busy you'd think they wouldn't choose the most labor intensive path....but bureaucrats gonna bureaucrat.
 
Lindberg said:
The statute refers to the process for obtaining an authorization for the special issuance of a medical certificate. What reason is there to believe that Congress intended that to mean something other than the then-existing process for obtaining an authorization for the special issuance of a medical certificate--which includes applying for a medical certificate? Congress certainly could have mandated a new process of that's what it wanted.
Click to expand...
The legislators very clearly chose to not require an SI for say, OSA. But they will make you do it again just because they can.
 
Half Fast said:
Think you can convince ‘em to change?
;)
Click to expand...
No. Just pointing it out. As they say in addiction recovery, you can’t change anyone unless they want to.

And I don’t think we necessarily know the bureaucratic intent anyway. This may not be recurring enough to be noticed. And it may just be inertia.
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
Even post-Chevron, I suspect a court would give considerable deference to the FAA.
Click to expand...
Chevron, as I've very recently learned, does not apply to federal regulations.

It applies to federal STATUTES.

Because the FAA is a regulatory agency, and not a statutory agency, Chevron does not apply to the FAA.

However, the FAA enjoys something similar to Chevron, known as Auer deference, or Seminole Rock deference. Auer deference requires federal courts to accept a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.

This is why nothing appeared to change on the FAA/14 CFR side of things once Chevron deference was overturned.

Congress allowed for medical volunteer pilots to be compensated for fuel expenses in Section 821 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012. The FAA has been ignoring that, claiming authority to regulate medical flight volunteer organizations as airlines, based on an improper reading of federal law and its own regulations.

There are currently two lawsuits filed against the FAA. The first, Wings of Mercy v. FAA, was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In Loper Bright Enters v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court eliminated Chrevron deference and replaced it with a rule requiring agencies to follow "the best reading of the statute". Texas Public Policy Commission argues that the FAA is not following the best reading of section 821 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 that allows reimbursement for fuel costs.

The second lawsuit, Rivers v. FAA, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Jeremy Rivers, a volunteer pilot for Wings of Mercy, seeks to receive reimbursement under the separate “pro rata” reimbursement exception in FAA regulations. Despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright, FAA interpretations of its own regulations still receive a type of Chevron deference called Auer deference. This case seeks to overturn Auer deference and require agencies to follow the best reading of their own regulations—not an interpretation the agency itself makes up to justify its actions.

"Congress acted to make it easier for volunteer pilots to help people in need, but the FAA essentially interpreted away that help. Loper Bright makes clear that agencies can't rewrite laws through creative interpretation. Courts must enforce the law Congress actually enacted, and that is exactly what we are asking the Sixth Circuit to do here."
 
Last edited:
Jon is correct. The FAA (and the rest of the federal regulators) still have the official deference to interpret the regulations, they themselves miswrote ambiguously. The Chevron Doctrine just removes that deference when it comes to the agencies interpreting enacted law (i.e. the US Code) .
 
Back
Top