The "Charade" of BasicMed

Here's the place to ask all of your medical questions. But don't believe everything you read!

Moderator: drseti

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2134
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby FastEddieB » Mon May 15, 2017 4:21 pm

I put "Charade" in quotes, because that's what some wag over on the Cirrus Owner's website claimed it was.

And its far more convoluted than the simple driver's license medical that has worked so well for Sport Pilots.

But it's very far from a charade to me!

As background, I have a commercial certificate, single and multiengine, and instrument rating. Also an instructor including multiengine and instrument.

But due to the hassle of getting Special Issuances every year due to a history of kidney stones, and the uncertainty and over treatment that went along with that, I let my medical lapse a number of years ago, and have been flying with Sport Pilot limitations. Not sure why a lapsed medical would affect my skill sets, but that's the law. And I really have enjoyed Light Sport flying anyway.

But how things changed with my completing a BasicMed physical Monday and taking the online course that night!

Now, even in my Sky Arrow, I'm no longer limited to day VFR, or 10,000' and below, or needing visual contact with the surface, or the higher VFR minimums - which I honestly can't remember anyway.

Not that I plan on a lot of flying above 10,000', or at night, or over an overcast or even IFR, but just having the option is nice.

Not to mention the ability to fly a whole bunch more planes. No plans to move from Light Sport, but I do have friends with a Mooney and a Cirrus who might just let me use them from time to time. And my options for instructing are also vastly expanded.

I feel for those who fell just outside the 10-year window for having a prior medical in place. And for those for whom the Third Class medical is no problem, there's not much of an advantage to BasicMed. But darn, it sure worked for me!

As an aside, planning a long day of flying tomorrow in the Sky Arrow - from my Copperhill base to Peru, Indiana to drop off Karen, then returning. I'll report on how that goes - and may climb above 10,000' on the way back - just because I can! Time to dust off my old oxygen bottles!
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
FastEddieB@mac.com

TimTaylor
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:17 pm
Contact:

Re: The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby TimTaylor » Mon May 15, 2017 5:26 pm

I totally agree Eddie. As you may remember, I missed out on Basic Med by 45 days. In other words, my 2nd class medical expired 10 years and 45 days prior to Obama signing the bill into law. I would get a new third class medical, but I have had a few medical issues over the past 12 years that might be problematic. I'll just stick with Light Sport until I hang it up. I'm considering retiring from flying on my 70th birthday in December of this year.
Commercial Pilot Airplane Single & Multiengine Land; Instrument Airplane;
Sport Endorsement Airplane Single Engine Sea;
Flight Instructor Airplane Single And Multiengine;
Ground Instructor Advanced Instrument

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2134
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby FastEddieB » Mon May 15, 2017 5:49 pm

I feel like I'm on the "backside of the power curve" as well.

I have friends who are CFII's, but getting instrument current just doesn't sound like a lot of fun. I think I could get comfortable in a Cirrus VFR again, but learning the Garmin Perspective seems daunting in and of itself.

There will come a time to hang it up for good. I'm not there yet, but I can see it on the horizon.
Fast Eddie B.

Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA

FastEddieB@mac.com

smutny
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:26 pm

Re: The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby smutny » Tue May 16, 2017 5:32 pm

From my point of view, those the smack talk BasicMed haven't thought it through.

While not perfect or near what was originally sent to Congress, it's a great improvement for the recreational pilot over Class III.

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby MrMorden » Tue May 16, 2017 7:59 pm

The people who are complaining are those who have never had a medical or not in the last ten years. Those people are left totally out of the picture. The requirement "to get a medical so you can fly without one" seems pretty dumb, honestly.

I'd like to get a private license so I could fly at night an get an instrument rating, but I'm not willing to risk my Sport Pilot ticket running the medical gauntlet. So for me, it is a bit of a charade. I prove several times a week I am capable of safely flying an airplane, yet still...

Eddie, would you still be as enthusiastic about the rule if your medical was expired ten years and a month before it was enacted? I understand it worked out for you, but good laws make consistent sense for all affected parties, not just some.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not really upset about this, I'm happy as a SP. But I am not for a minute thinking this change is a just, consistent one that serves the entire aviation community. It's very narrowly targeted at aging pilots who can no longer get medicals, and does nothing to grow aviation, which can be done only by bringing new pilots into the fold.

This thread seems kind of like saying "It's a myth the Titanic had inadequate lifeboats...after all, I got a seat!"
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

TimTaylor
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:17 pm
Contact:

Re: The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby TimTaylor » Tue May 16, 2017 8:46 pm

I missed out by 45 days but think it is an excellent law. I also think it is exactly what was passed by Congress and little different from what was requested. If not, what am I missing? There are a few people who are never satisfied and think they should be free to do anything, anytime, anywhere with no regard as to how it might affect other people.

Light Sport is a lot different than flying a light twin full of passengers in actual instrument conditions. The medical requirements need to be more than I can find the airport in my car.
Commercial Pilot Airplane Single & Multiengine Land; Instrument Airplane;
Sport Endorsement Airplane Single Engine Sea;
Flight Instructor Airplane Single And Multiengine;
Ground Instructor Advanced Instrument

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby MrMorden » Wed May 17, 2017 8:24 am

TimTaylor wrote:I missed out by 45 days but think it is an excellent law. I also think it is exactly what was passed by Congress and little different from what was requested. If not, what am I missing? There are a few people who are never satisfied and think they should be free to do anything, anytime, anywhere with no regard as to how it might affect other people.

Light Sport is a lot different than flying a light twin full of passengers in actual instrument conditions. The medical requirements need to be more than I can find the airport in my car.


Tim, I have heard that riff before. Sport Pilots only have to find the airport to fly? Boy, that's insulting. How is anybody on this board still alive, being such a bunch of defectives? So 10 years and you are twin-in-IMC super stud, and 45 days later you can barely find the airport unassisted? How ridiculous. What are you missing? Self-certification and the requirement to consult with your physician, for two. The exact same requirements in BasicMed, by the way.

I think you are right the rule was exactly (to the letter) what was written in the law. The INTENT of the law was to allow pilots to fly without a medical under certain conditions. IMO The FAA added the "get a medical to fly without one" language to subvert that intent because they didn't like it, and the law passed by Congress did not prohibit it.

Is your argument truly that somebody who has had a medical ten years ago is any more physically fit for flight than one who has never had a medical? Ten years is more than one-eighth of a human lifespan. It's long enough to go from a completely clear angiogram to fully blocked coronary arteries. Long enough to go from perfect blood sugar to full-blown insulin dependent diabetes. Long enough for one of the slowest growing cancers, colon cancer, to go from undetected to killing you. Almost any life-threatening condition you can think of can manifest over a ten year period. It's literally meaningless that a person had a medical ten years ago.

If a physician can sign off on somebody who has not had an FAA medical within ten years, they should be able to sign off anybody based on similar criteria. There is no objective medical reason for the ten year medical requirement, it's just a case of a bureaucracy refusing to relinquish control that they have had historically.

Most pilots, even we lowly "barely find the airport" pilots, have a self-preservation instinct. We don't fly when we are tired, sick, taking medication that makes us loopy, or just not feeling right. Of course flying a light twin in IMC is different from flying a light sport airplane in VMC. But the medical requirements we are discussing here are not different between the two, OTHER than the requirement to have an FAA blessing within ten years of the enactment of the law, which means absolutely jack-all to a pilot's state of health or competence to fly either one. What happens in twenty years when those same pilots have not had a medical within 30 years? Is 30 years just as good as ten? Then what's wrong with ten years plus 45 days? Hmm?
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2134
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby FastEddieB » Wed May 17, 2017 9:02 am

I honestly did not mean to start a contentious thread.

I just wanted to outline how much it helped me, while at the same time lamenting it wasn't better and commiserating with those who fell outside its purview.

I would have preferred "Driver's License Only", building on the success it's had in the Sport Pilot world.
But it is what it is, and the system as implemented is not arbitrary and I can understand how we got there.

That's all.
Fast Eddie B.

Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA

FastEddieB@mac.com

3Dreaming
Posts: 1984
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby 3Dreaming » Wed May 17, 2017 9:16 am

MrMorden wrote:I think you are right the rule was exactly (to the letter) what was written in the law. The INTENT of the law was to allow pilots to fly without a medical under certain conditions. IMO The FAA added the "get a medical to fly without one" language to subvert that intent because they didn't like it, and the law passed by Congress did not prohibit it.


The facts don't support your opinion.

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby MrMorden » Wed May 17, 2017 11:05 am

3Dreaming wrote:
MrMorden wrote:I think you are right the rule was exactly (to the letter) what was written in the law. The INTENT of the law was to allow pilots to fly without a medical under certain conditions. IMO The FAA added the "get a medical to fly without one" language to subvert that intent because they didn't like it, and the law passed by Congress did not prohibit it.


The facts don't support your opinion.


Senator Inhofe was a chief architect of the law, and has said as much. You can't just claim to have a lock on the facts and provide none to support your assertion.

Eddie, not trying to be contentious, just pointing out what I see as flaws in the rule as written. I did take some offense at what others wrote, since some seem to think Sport Pilots can barely fog a mirror. I just wanted to point out the only difference between BasicMed and the Sport Pilot medical requirement is bureaucratic and not really medical in any substantive way.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

TimTaylor
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:17 pm
Contact:

Re: The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby TimTaylor » Wed May 17, 2017 11:28 am

WRONG
Commercial Pilot Airplane Single & Multiengine Land; Instrument Airplane;
Sport Endorsement Airplane Single Engine Sea;
Flight Instructor Airplane Single And Multiengine;
Ground Instructor Advanced Instrument

3Dreaming
Posts: 1984
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby 3Dreaming » Wed May 17, 2017 11:38 am

MrMorden wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:
MrMorden wrote:I think you are right the rule was exactly (to the letter) what was written in the law. The INTENT of the law was to allow pilots to fly without a medical under certain conditions. IMO The FAA added the "get a medical to fly without one" language to subvert that intent because they didn't like it, and the law passed by Congress did not prohibit it.


The facts don't support your opinion.


Senator Inhofe was a chief architect of the law, and has said as much. You can't just claim to have a lock on the facts and provide none to support your assertion.


I'm sorry I didn't provide any facts at the time of my first post. This is the text right from S.571 from the 114th congress as signed by the president on July 15, 2016.

(2) the individual holds a medical certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration on the date of enactment of this Act, held such a certificate at any point during the 10-year period preceding such date of enactment, or obtains such a certificate after such date of enactment;

Having held a medical within the past 10 years was mandated by congress, and not just slipped in by the FAA. Here is a link if you want to see for yourself. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con ... l/571/text

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby MrMorden » Wed May 17, 2017 11:59 am

TimTaylor wrote:WRONG


I wrote quite a bit of material. I'm open to having my points refuted BY ARGUMENTS, but not by just assertions I'm wrong with no support whatsoever. What's wrong, everything I wrote? Hardly. Your post does nothing to further the discussion.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby MrMorden » Wed May 17, 2017 12:04 pm

3Dreaming wrote:
MrMorden wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:
The facts don't support your opinion.


Senator Inhofe was a chief architect of the law, and has said as much. You can't just claim to have a lock on the facts and provide none to support your assertion.


I'm sorry I didn't provide any facts at the time of my first post. This is the text right from S.571 from the 114th congress as signed by the president on July 15, 2016.

(2) the individual holds a medical certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration on the date of enactment of this Act, held such a certificate at any point during the 10-year period preceding such date of enactment, or obtains such a certificate after such date of enactment;

Having held a medical within the past 10 years was mandated by congress, and not just slipped in by the FAA. Here is a link if you want to see for yourself. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con ... l/571/text


I will concede the final bill as passed is as you say. But that was not Inhofe's original intent, and the final language was that way to appease a bunch of groups. The original intent was to allow DL medical for non-commercial operations in aircraft below a certain weight, without the ten year medical requirement. But I agree we have to work with what was passed. My primary argument is that it's a dumb rule for the reasons I stated, more than the actual history of the rule.

I only disagree with the ten year medical requirement, the rest of the rule is pretty good.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

Merlinspop
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:48 pm
Location: WV Eastern Panhandle

Re: The "Charade" of BasicMed

Postby Merlinspop » Wed May 17, 2017 12:40 pm

To be honest, I'm okay with how it was written and how it came about. My last medical was issued about 12 or so years ago, so it's not like I missed out by only a few days (it must sting for the unlucky few who were out by a day!). The reason I'm okay with it is that the legislation came about the way legislation is supposed to; by compromise. Group 1 wanted ABCD; Group 2 wanted WXYZ. The final bill turned out to be AXCZ. No one got everything they wanted, but something (hopefully) useful came out of it. I would have benefited greatly without the "within the last 10 years" bit (was really hoping for "never been denied"), but oh well, that's not how it ended up. I'm really tired of the "all or nothing" stance that's been going on for too long with no end in sight. I blame the internet and 24 hour cable.
- Bruce


Return to “Medical Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests