It's official... BasicMed expanded

[MauleSkinner]

How many people realize that Basicmed is one word?

Apparently I don’t.

 

[Pinecone]

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.

Well, there is the reg that requires a seat with seatbelt for each occupant. So more people than seats is not authorized. So taking seats out could be interpreted to limiting the aircraft to that number of passengers.

 

[Pinecone]

How many people realize that Basicmed is one word?

If you want to be ACCURATE, the term is BasicMed, NOT Basicmed.

 

[Anthem]

Well, there is the reg that requires a seat with seatbelt for each occupant. So more people than seats is not authorized. So taking seats out could be interpreted to limiting the aircraft to that number of passengers.

true. but you removing seats is not "authorized by the federal government" - its just you removing seats and that "limits" the number of passengers. But that in no way is "authorized by the federal government". You're going to use the circular reference that requires a seat for an occupant as that is regulated. But again - that fails to be more persuasive than they arguing that it has to be typed for as being authorized. And congress has delegated that authority to the FAA. You can STC it which would be "authorized by the federal government". But again - your argument must be more persuasive than what they have to overcome whatever vagueness you are arguing in the reg.

 

[midlifeflyer]

true. but you removing seats is not "authorized by the federal government" - its just you removing seats and that "limits" the number of passengers. But that in no way is "authorized by the federal government". You're going to use the circular reference that requires a seat for an occupant as that is regulated. But again - that fails to be more persuasive than they arguing that it has to be typed for as being authorized. And congress has delegated that authority to the FAA. You can STC it which would be "authorized by the federal government". But again - your argument must be more persuasive than what they have to overcome whatever vagueness you are arguing in the reg.

You can make the same seatbelt argument about weight and balance. Since filling all the seats would make the airplane overweight, only enough seats as would keep the airplane within weight limits with the minimum fuel required for the flight is "authorized." My WAG is that a court faced with either argument would reject it pretty quickly.

It kinda reminds me of the argument I used to hear that all procedure turns on instrument approaches are optional.

 

[Fearless Tower]

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.

Good point. Take the Beech 18 as an example. Type Certified for up to 10, so if you go by the FAA interpretation, it would not qualify even though the interior of my aircraft will physically only allow 7 total seats.

I personally don't feel like duking it out with the FAA in court.

 

[Brad Z]

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.

You can now fly under BasicMed as PIC or as a required flightcrew member. This was fixed in the 11/22/2022 Balloon Medical rule.

 

[pfarber]

So when you go to Canada and have to clear customs do they ask for your certificate and medical?

 

[midlifeflyer]

So when you go to Canada and have to clear customs do they ask for your certificate and medical?

Are you asking, “if I violate the rules, will I get caught?”

 

[Brad Z]

So when you go to Canada and have to clear customs do they ask for your certificate and medical?

Yes, they do specifically ask for your medical.

 

[JOhnH]

Yes, they do specifically ask for your medical.

Except for all the times I landed in Canada, taxied up to their waiting circle or called them up to tell them I"m here, and they say have a good trip; you're good to go.

Then I come home, land in the US and have to stand by the plane till they get there with the dogs and explosive detectors. And I'm having to pee the whole time but I can't leave the plane and prefer not to pee out in the open.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Then I come home, land in the US and have to stand by the plane till they get there with the dogs and explosive detectors. And I'm having to pee the whole time but I can't leave the plane and prefer not to pee out in the open.

Pee where the customs guy has to step in it to look in the airplane.

 

[AvNavCom]

...prefer not to pee out in the open.

Yeah, especially since that now has a good chance of landing you on a sex offender list in a lot of places.

 

[ateamer]

Yeah, especially since that now has a good chance of landing you on a sex offender list in a lot of places.

Find and post one case in the last 50 years where someone was convicted of a sex offense for peeing in public.

 

[AvNavCom]

Find and post one case in the last 50 years where someone was convicted of a sex offense for peeing in public.

Long-ago charge to cost man his home

DELTONA — After the birth of his first daughter in 1986, Juan Matamoros decided to party. What he says he did afterward was not uncommon, but it has haunted him and his family for more than 2…

www.orlandosentinel.com

There you go. Weirdly, didn't involve California which was my first guess.

Stupid that it's even a consideration, but public urination does fall under indecent exposure laws in a number of states, with the potential for a sex offender registration requirement. Not interested in getting into a ****ing match (ha!) over it, as I agree it's probably very rare for someone to actually be convicted, so I guess I shouldn't have said "good chance" but rather "a chance".

 

[ateamer]

Long-ago charge to cost man his home

DELTONA — After the birth of his first daughter in 1986, Juan Matamoros decided to party. What he says he did afterward was not uncommon, but it has haunted him and his family for more than 2…

www.orlandosentinel.com

There you go. Weirdly, didn't involve California which was my first guess.

Stupid that it's even a consideration, but public urination does fall under indecent exposure laws in a number of states, with the potential for a sex offender registration requirement. Not interested in getting into a ****ing match (ha!) over it, as I agree it's probably very rare for someone to actually be convicted, so I guess I shouldn't have said "good chance" but rather "a chance".

Can’t read the article from Florida without paying.

I was a career LEO in California. In that state, it’s specifically stated that indecent exposure must be done for sexual gratification, or it’s not a crime under that statute.

But I now live in Florida and actually am not surprised at some excessive, uninformed uptightness in the law and the application thereof. From talking to guys who worked in law enforcement here in the 70s and early 80s, it was like the West Coast was in the 30s and 40s with regards to training, courts, and ethics.

 

[MarkH]

Good point. Take the Beech 18 as an example. Type Certified for up to 10, so if you go by the FAA interpretation, it would not qualify even though the interior of my aircraft will physically only allow 7 total seats.

I personally don't feel like duking it out with the FAA in court.

An STC limitation worked for the Cherokee 6.

On one hand, I am glad to see these updates. On the other hand, its probably not good for my wallet to know I can fly an Aerostar on BasicMed.

 

[Pinecone]

true. but you removing seats is not "authorized by the federal government" - its just you removing seats and that "limits" the number of passengers. But that in no way is "authorized by the federal government". You're going to use the circular reference that requires a seat for an occupant as that is regulated. But again - that fails to be more persuasive than they arguing that it has to be typed for as being authorized. And congress has delegated that authority to the FAA. You can STC it which would be "authorized by the federal government". But again - your argument must be more persuasive than what they have to overcome whatever vagueness you are arguing in the reg.

It depends on the airplane. The Gipps GA-8 you can remove none or all the seats.

So some aircraft have varying configurations of number of seats.

But the PA-32 that started the number change, from my understanding you can fly with or without the 7th seat.

 

[Pinecone]

On the other hand, its probably not good for my wallet to know I can fly an Aerostar on BasicMed.

You always could, just not with the Gross Weight Increase STC. Except for the 700, stock GW is 6,000.

 

[Brad Z]

Except for all the times I landed in Canada, taxied up to their waiting circle or called them up to tell them I"m here, and they say have a good trip; you're good to go.

Then I come home, land in the US and have to stand by the plane till they get there with the dogs and explosive detectors. And I'm having to pee the whole time but I can't leave the plane and prefer not to pee out in the open.

I should have clarified...****if**** a Canadian customs agent appears for your arrival in Canada they will ask for your pilot cert and medical. Only a handful of times have I actually been met at the plane.

When you return to the U.S., CBP will *always* appear (eventually, and yep, no pee break until you clear) and yes, they ask for a medical too.

 

[Half Fast]

When you return to the U.S., CBP will *always* appear (eventually, and yep, no pee break until you clear) and yes, they ask for a medical too.

How does US CBP handle that when you're using Basic Med, such as returning from the Bahamas or from Mexico? Or for people flying under SP rules? Is a US driver's license accepted in lieu of a medical certificate?

 

[flyingron]

Can’t read the article from Florida without paying.

I was a career LEO in California. In that state, it’s specifically stated that indecent exposure must be done for sexual gratification, or it’s not a crime under that statute.

But I now live in Florida and actually am not surprised at some excessive, uninformed uptightness in the law and the application thereof. From talking to guys who worked in law enforcement here in the 70s and early 80s, it was like the West Coast was in the 30s and 40s with regards to training, courts, and ethics.

(Turn of javascript in your browser for that site and you can read it).

Any way TL;DR exert: Guy is out drinking, pulls over to relieve himself, and people passing by harass the dark skinned man in white neighbor hood and call cops. Gets charged with open lewdness, which as you note, requires the intent to alarm people by your exposure. Pleads not guilty but still gets convicted and probation and forced on to sex offender registry. Moves to Florida where they realize he's on the registry and decides his house is too close (2500 feet from school, bus stop, child care, or Chuck E. Cheeses).

 

[midlifeflyer]

How does US CBP handle that when you're using Basic Med, such as returning from the Bahamas or from Mexico? Or for people flying under SP rules? Is a US driver's license accepted in lieu of a medical certificate?

I'm looking forward to the answer. I'd be surprised if they cared, or even knew the various FAA medical requirements for different operations.

 

[Dana]

When you return to the U.S., CBP will *always* appear (eventually, and yep, no pee break until you clear) and yes, they ask for a medical too.

You're legal as soon as you cross the border into the US, I don't think the US authorities can charge you for violations of another country's regulations while outside the US, no?

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

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.

That's not true any longer.

BasicMed Safety Pilots - IFR Magazine

The article, “Safety Pilot Rules” (March 2020 IFR), talked about the ins and outs of safety pilot roles, qualifications, responsibilities, and logging. Under 14 C.F.R. §91.109(c) safety pilots are considered required crewmembers. The minimum requirements for acting as a safety pilot are (1) a...

www.ifr-magazine.com

(i) A private pilot may act as pilot in command or serve as a required flightcrew member of an aircraft without holding a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter provided the pilot holds a valid U.S. driver's license, meets the requirements of § 61.23(c)(3), and complies with this section and all of the following conditions and limitations:


(1) The aircraft is authorized to carry not more than 7 occupants, has a maximum takeoff weight of not more than 12,500 pounds, is operated with no more than 6 passengers on board, and is not a transport category rotorcraft certified to airworthiness standards under part 29 of this chapter; and

(2) The flight, including each portion of the flight, is not carried out—
(i) At an altitude that is more than 18,000 feet above mean sea level;
(ii) Outside the United States unless authorized by the country in which the flight is conducted; or
(iii) At an indicated airspeed exceeding 250 knots; and

(3) The pilot has available in his or her logbook—
(i) The completed medical examination checklist required under § 68.7 of this chapter; and
(ii) The certificate of course completion required under § 61.23(c)(3).

 

[MauleSkinner]

You're legal as soon as you cross the border into the US, I don't think the US authorities can charge you for violations of another country's regulations while outside the US, no?

They count licenses and fish in coolers when you come back from a Canadian fishing trip.