You're not really "good to go" with an FAA medical either since we are still required by 61.53 to evaluate our fitness for each flight. Different "peculiarities" but peculiarities all the same.
Of course not, but if one had a 3rd class medical exam performed immediately before operating an aircraft, one would expect that the exam would demonstrate compliance with 61.53.
That's one of the things the stupid training course is supposed to teach you while you're burning through it looking for the Mayo clinic Easter eggs so you can get the completion certificate.
It would take more than a single event to prove that BasicMed was a bad idea. It would be necessary to show that BasicMed pilots were having medical-incapacitation events at higher rates than those with third-class medical certificates.
The conclusion will be that incapacitation events are sufficiently rare that a statistically significant determination can not be made.
Not basic med, but the history of other medical-free flying shows you're about as likely to have a sudden incapacitation with a 3rd class as you are without one.
To fly under Basic Med, you need to complete these four steps:
I’d wager if a proper study was done on all medical evaluations it would show little statistical difference in events across any of the levels. Between people hiding issues, and people getting new issues, frankly, known issues aren’t the problem. It’s a shame the process can’t be about assuring an appropriate treatment program for the issue rather than pass/fail.
That's probably true.
Isn't the most significant difference between classes how long they're good for? Other than requiring an EKG and slightly better vision, are there other substantive differences in the criteria?
Vision, EKG, but also behind the scenes differences in terms of SI protocols for various conditions. FAA Aeromedical typically takes a more conservative approach to 1st and 2nd class versus 3rd class.
Yes.
Six months earlier an experienced pilot had a health issue. He was using ag chemicals and was exposed during several hours in his farm operation. He did have an A-Fib issue during the problem, did not feel well and drove 25 miles to home. Next morning still noticed his ability to articulate was not as sharp as he should be so drove his vehicle to the doctor and was told he had a stroke. This was the only indication of any fault, all other physical activities were fine. Previous he has had a couple of A-Fib challenges that were minor up to a heart rate of about 100 which is considered by his heart specialist as minor. After the six month issue he has started a drug called eloquis for reducing blood thinner and have been told it will be unlikely to recur the stroke. All cognitive abilities have been tested and are normal. All physical muscle movements have never been affected, speech abilities are now normal. CFII has flown with him and is comfortable with flying skills. The basic med that has been utilized by his doctor feels comfortable with him but the pilot has not renewed his AOPA basic med form. If the basic med approvals will be concerned by the FAA due to additional time frame restraint then the pilot might want to fly with a LSA instead of his larger ASEL. Will the FAA needs additional time beyond the six months (or 2 years), neurologist COG study and basic med review? Can he fill out the form and get back in the pilot’s seat now?
They will insist on two years. Why? The only thing we really really know about this is, a recurrence is 5x more likely than in the general population, within the first 2 years.
Everyone, Brad's discussion is dead on point. That is also why I do not think the American Public will accept "remote first officer", e.g 1 pilot crew, even though we can send Artemis to the moon. That is a singular event, can you imagine the opportunities to mess up with >30,000 part 121 fligh operations PER DAY?
Hi Jim,
Hi, I spent 8-10 hours with neuropsychologist Christine You and had excellent results. Scored high. Zero cognitive deficit. I had the loop recorder implanted in November 2025 and so far no AFIB. No AFIB at all since January 2023 ablation. But with the ILR, not quite yet at the 6 month mark. My lawyer submitted an appeal with only 2-3 months of ILR data with no AFIB but received a letter on 3/1 with a denial.
Sorry, I inadvertently replied as a guest - Hi, I spent 8-10 hours with neuropsychologist Christine You and had excellent results. Scored high. Zero cognitive deficit. I had the loop recorder implanted in November 2025 and so far no AFIB. No AFIB at all since January 2023 ablation. But with the ILR, not quite yet at the 6 month mark. My lawyer submitted an appeal with only 2-3 months of ILR data with no AFIB but received a letter on 3/1 with a denial.
That's your problem. Six months is the STANDARD. Standards do not get waived, e.g they don.t "waive the wiaver". 6 months has stood for about the past 2.5 years as STD.
Thank you, and I'm upset that my attorney prematurely sent in the info without telling me, which triggered another denial. Any advice on next steps? Do we resubmit at 6 months? Did this new 3/1/26 denial create an unnecessary insurmountable obstacle for me? Can I retain you to get this back on track, perhaps even work with my attorney to figure out a successful strategy? Happy to pay for a consult if that's better.
Thank you so much for replying to me. I am waiting to hear from my attorney and I'm praying for good news. I will let everyone know what happens in my case. I am hoping that somehow my experience will help another pilot who is having trouble with a medical due to a stroke at a young age. If I do not receive the good news I'm praying for, I will reach out to you through your website- thank you so much Dr. Chien. Hopefully, I'm making the right decision here but I understand your perspective and opinion.
