Already Under Basic Med. DUI. Section 68.11

UTLonghorn_1979 said:
No, I appreciate the thoroughness! Just can’t believe it’s that complicated!
Click to expand...
*Not 100% sure I've got this right. This is what I've pieced together from my experience so far, plus what I've read in the regs plus thoughts and responses here. Which is why I've been seeking folks who've had firsthand experience vs. the speculative answers I've also had.

Ran the full gamut of "You have nothing to worry about- you don't have a medical certificate" to "You don't have a medical certificate- so they'll take your pilot certificate." Evaluating my (albeit limited) options before pushing the next "button" within the system.
 
Jon Wilder said:
If you’re grounded for any class of medical or ineligibile for Basic, you’re ineligible for Sport Pilot as well. As Dr Bruce said, they’ll revoke the pilot certificate.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Well, maybe in this case or any where alcohol or drugs are involved and the FAA is triggered by the required report, but:

"§ 61.53(b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate. For operations provided for in § 61.23(b) of this part, a person shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."

It doesn't say anything about conditions making one ineligible for a medical or Basicmed carrying over to Sport Pilot.

Sport Pilot: The pilot must believe he's OK to fly.
Basicmed: The pilot's physician must believe he's OK to fly, and there are a few specific exclusions.
3rd or higher: The FAA's physician must believe he's OK to fly, and the FAA must agree.
 
Dana said:
I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Well, maybe in this case or any where alcohol or drugs are involved and the FAA is triggered by the required report, but:

"§ 61.53(b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate. For operations provided for in § 61.23(b) of this part, a person shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."

It doesn't say anything about conditions making one ineligible for a medical or Basicmed carrying over to Sport Pilot.

Sport Pilot: The pilot must believe he's OK to fly.
Basicmed: The pilot's physician must believe he's OK to fly, and there are a few specific exclusions.
3rd or higher: The FAA's physician must believe he's OK to fly, and the FAA must agree.
Click to expand...
Right. 61.53b is still applicable. That's why I'd discuss matters with my PCP. "Know, or have reason to know, of any medical condition." If my PCP concurs I'm OK, then I have no reason to know of a hazardous medical condition because we've addressed it.

For Sport Pilot, suspension or revocation of a medical cert is ineligible ( & denial of med app, withdrawal of SI, etc.) Otherwise, 61.53b applies (and valid pilot cert and DL, of course).

Basic Med gets more tangly in part because of the specified conditions in 68.9 that require a one-time SI (clinical diagnosis or medical history of substance dependence among them).

68.9c "Special Rule for Mental Health Conditions" seems to place authority with the PCP whether a pilot with a mental health condition is safe to fly under BM.

But then 68.11 contains broad language to demand "additional information or history so that the Administrator may determine whether the individual is safe to continue operating under" 61.113i. (and specifies NDR as one source of "credible or urgent" info)

So it would be good to hear what's happening in practice. Which so far neither AOPA nor my local HIMS AME have been able to say "We've had a few calls from BM pilots who got DUI's and this is what happened..."

With ~80k BM pilots out there over ~7 years it's likely that I'm neither the first nor the last.
 
Rocko said:
So, to recap & verify that my understanding is correct- FAA's standard process for BM pilots who report DUI's in compliance with 61.15:

-Investigations branch sends receipt confirmation letter (certified mail) to reporting pilot, and notifies AMCD (providing "documents").

-AMCD sends letter (noncertified mail) to pilot that they have received "documents," that there is no medical app currently in the system, and that if pilot chooses to apply in the future he must bring DUI info to AME and submit medical app.

-Pilot completes Basic Med online course (including date and PCP info for current CMEC). Airman Cert branch checks 61.113 eligibility criteria, including NDR check. (NDR check shows any hits within last 3 years; pilot DL status appears as "Licensed" if DL has been reinstated, "Not Eligible" if DL has not been reinstated.)

-Airman Cert branch consults with AMCD(?)

-For all BM pilots with an NDR hit, Airman Cert branch sends (certified mail) letter to pilot demanding "additional info" per 68.11. (Same info as demanded from pilot who holds Part 67 medical certificate? Do you have an example of such letter sent to a BM pilot?)

*Pilot complies with request: Airman Cert branch and/or AMCD makes determination if pilot is still eligible to operate under 61.113.

*Pilot doesn't comply with request: Airman Cert branch suspends/revokes pilot cert (Title 49 referenced within 68.11).

*If pilot is determined to be ineligible to operate under 61.113, Airman Cert branch sends (noncertified mail) "boilerplate" letter advising pilot he appears to not meet one or more eligibility criteria for 61.113 (list enclosed within letter); Be sure to comply with all of said criteria, or that a medical certificate per 61.23 would be required to fly; And that to knowingly fly without a medical certificate can result in suspension/revocation of your pilot cert.

Have I got this correct? And you've worked with BM pilots who came to you for SI's to comply with 68.9 as a result? Thank you.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Basic is an unwanted Potato @ FAA. The operations branch lost the battle, though medical branch keesp the records..
 
bbchien said:
Pretty much. Basic is an unwanted Potato @ FAA. The operations branch lost the battle, though medical branch keesp the records..
Click to expand...
Thank you. That helps to have an idea of the process steps. Do you happen to have an example of the certified (68.11) letter they send to BM pilots? I've only seen the "boilerplate" you've shared. No rush with Christmas coming up the next couple days, if you have one. Thanks again and Happy Holidays! (And I'm not drinking.)
 
bbchien said:
Pretty much. Basic is an unwanted Potato @ FAA. The operations branch lost the battle, though medical branch keesp the records..
Click to expand...
It is. My DPE was a fed when AOPA, EAA, all the alphabet aviation groups were trying to pass a driver license medical. The FAA kept making every excuse in the world. “We lost the paperwork”…anything they could think of to stall it.

Well…some members of the aviation groups are also Congress critters. They brought it to Congress. Congress outlined exactly what they were going to do and gave them a deadline. The FAA knew from that point they could no longer hide it.

The FAA did manage to work in the “one time medical after July 14th 2006” requirement.
 
A neighbor was late in life going for his dream of earning his PPL. Unfortunately in his late 50’s he learned he was to be denied class 3 medical as he had a DUI in his early 20’s. Zero problems since then, but was forced to quit training as he could not get a student license.
 
Last edited:
NordicDave said:
A neighbor was late in life going for his dream of earning his PPL. Unfortunately in his late 50’s he learned he was to be denied class 3 medical as he had a DUI in his early 20’s. Zero problems since then, but was forced to quit training as he could not get a student license.
Click to expand...
That’s what the FAA calls “success.”
 
NordicDave said:
A neighbor was late in life going for his dream of earning his PPL. Unfortunately in his late 50’s he learned he was to be denied class 3 medical as he had a DUI in his early 20’s. Zero problems since then, but was forced to quit training as he could not get a student license.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to hear that. I've been fortunate that I had switched to Basic Med before this happened. I had SI's for several years (not alcohol related) so I made the switch as soon as my last SI expired. Sport Pilot is still an option for me as I have no med cert suspensions or revocations. We'll see what MOSAIC brings. Continuing with Basic Med isn't off the table, but that's why I want to be absolutely clear about how FAA processes DUI's in this case given stories like your friend's. Important for folks to know that completing the BM online course may result in getting a certified letter that you must respond to at peril of losing your pilot cert.
Happy Holidays.
 
NordicDave said:
A neighbor was late in life going for his dream of earning his PPL. Unfortunately in his late 50’s he learned he was to be denied class 3 medical as he had a DUI in his early 20’s. Zero problems since then, but was forced to quit training as he could not get a student license.
Click to expand...
He can get the student license. He can even get the medical. But getting the medical will be a process, and an expensive one.

It’s absurd that the FAA has no statute of limitations on this. I think we need to petition Congress to codify a ten year statute of limitations for DUI.
 
Jon Wilder said:
He can get the student license. He can even get the medical. But getting the medical will be a process, and an expensive one.

It’s absurd that the FAA has no statute of limitations on this. I think we need to petition Congress to codify a ten year statute of limitations for DUI.
Click to expand...
Why not just get rid of the stupid 1 time medical while we’re at it. That make more sense and would further relieve the FAA of needless involvement in basic med operations.
 
Jon Wilder said:
He can get the student license. He can even get the medical. But getting the medical will be a process, and an expensive one.

It’s absurd that the FAA has no statute of limitations on this. I think we need to petition Congress to codify a ten year statute of limitations for DUI.
Click to expand...
True.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Why not just get rid of the stupid 1 time medical while we’re at it. That make more sense and would further relieve the FAA of needless involvement in basic med operations.
Click to expand...
I don't mind that I had to have held the medical, though I agree the value is questionable. The apparent disconnect between the regulatory requirements as published vs. FAA's internal policies is frustrating. The foundation of BM being that once you've been certified under Part 67 without suspension or revocation, etc. you can then work with your PCP regarding your fitness to fly. The tradeoffs being: 1. There are certain specified limitations on your pilot privileges/flight ops and 2. There are certain specified conditions for which a clinical diagnosis or medical history would require an SI. (Obviously substance dependence being one of them.)

Regarding mental health conditions (of which substance dependence is a subset), 68.9c says:

"(c) Special rule for mental health conditions.

(1) In the case of an individual with a clinically diagnosed mental health condition, the ability to operate an aircraft under § 61.113(i) of this chapter shall not apply if—

(i) In the judgment of the individual's State-licensed medical specialist, the condition—

(A) Renders the individual unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the airman privileges required to operate an aircraft under § 61.113(i) of this chapter; or

(B) May reasonably be expected to make the individual unable to perform the duties or exercise the privileges required to operate an aircraft under § 61.113(i) of this chapter; or

(ii) The individual's driver's license is revoked by the issuing agency as a result of a clinically diagnosed mental health condition.

(2) Subject to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, an individual clinically diagnosed with a mental health condition shall certify every 2 years, in conjunction with the certification under § 68.3(b)(3), that the individual is under the care of a State-licensed medical specialist for that mental health condition."

So you'd think it's up to your state-licensed PCP who reviews your CMEC if you have a diagnosis that falls under this. And if that diagnosis is substance dependence, then you need to undergo treatment and eventually see your HIMS AME to initiate the SI process.

But as my attorney put it, DUI is "the sexy crime." Authorities treat it specially. In the case of the FAA, an NDR hit and OKC now steps in. And as we've read many times on this forum, they have their own internal policies, definitions, etc. that they apply. In the case of substance dependence, at least partially at odds with the licensed medical community's standards and criteria (or application thereof).

Yet if I have chest pains (example), my wife calls an ambulance and I go to the ER. There's no CFR section that compels me to report the incident directly to FAA within 60 days (vis a vis 61.15). That ER trip may or may not result in a cardiovascular diagnosis. That's up to the ER doc, my PCP, and associated specialists. And if that diagnosis falls within 68.9, then my PCP won't sign off my CMEC and I'll be contacting my AME to initiate an SI.

That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. But DUI's are special. Therefore, know the process before pushing the "button." (IMHO)

Happy Holidays.
 
Rocko said:
I don't mind that I had to have held the medical, though I agree the value is questionable. The apparent disconnect between the regulatory requirements as published vs. FAA's internal policies is frustrating. The foundation of BM being that once you've been certified under Part 67 without suspension or revocation, etc. you can then work with your PCP regarding your fitness to fly. The tradeoffs being: 1. There are certain specified limitations on your pilot privileges/flight ops and 2. There are certain specified conditions for which a clinical diagnosis or medical history would require an SI. (Obviously substance dependence being one of them.)

Regarding mental health conditions (of which substance dependence is a subset), 68.9c says:

"(c) Special rule for mental health conditions.

(1) In the case of an individual with a clinically diagnosed mental health condition, the ability to operate an aircraft under § 61.113(i) of this chapter shall not apply if—

(i) In the judgment of the individual's State-licensed medical specialist, the condition—

(A) Renders the individual unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the airman privileges required to operate an aircraft under § 61.113(i) of this chapter; or

(B) May reasonably be expected to make the individual unable to perform the duties or exercise the privileges required to operate an aircraft under § 61.113(i) of this chapter; or

(ii) The individual's driver's license is revoked by the issuing agency as a result of a clinically diagnosed mental health condition.

(2) Subject to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, an individual clinically diagnosed with a mental health condition shall certify every 2 years, in conjunction with the certification under § 68.3(b)(3), that the individual is under the care of a State-licensed medical specialist for that mental health condition."

So you'd think it's up to your state-licensed PCP who reviews your CMEC if you have a diagnosis that falls under this. And if that diagnosis is substance dependence, then you need to undergo treatment and eventually see your HIMS AME to initiate the SI process.

But as my attorney put it, DUI is "the sexy crime." Authorities treat it specially. In the case of the FAA, an NDR hit and OKC now steps in. And as we've read many times on this forum, they have their own internal policies, definitions, etc. that they apply. In the case of substance dependence, at least partially at odds with the licensed medical community's standards and criteria (or application thereof).

Yet if I have chest pains (example), my wife calls an ambulance and I go to the ER. There's no CFR section that compels me to report the incident directly to FAA within 60 days (vis a vis 61.15). That ER trip may or may not result in a cardiovascular diagnosis. That's up to the ER doc, my PCP, and associated specialists. And if that diagnosis falls within 68.9, then my PCP won't sign off my CMEC and I'll be contacting my AME to initiate an SI.

That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. But DUI's are special. Therefore, know the process before pushing the "button." (IMHO)

Happy Holidays.
Click to expand...
It’s an attempt, poor albeit, for the FAA to look like they can control the human condition to stop accidents.

Merry Christmas!
 
bbchien said:
Not Quite:
Click to expand...
I think the operative word is “compels.”

Much of the FAA’s medical authority and basis for evaluation is predicated upon applicant honesty.

That’s the issue leading to so many not disclosing medical issues or feeling compelled to tell the truth.

Not saying this is right, but I’m dealing with the “consequences” of being forthright and honest on my application. 2 years+ and over $15K in medical related costs, probably closer to $20K.

No duh a good portion of the flying community are going to hide medical issues.
 
Rocko said:
Yet if I have chest pains (example), my wife calls an ambulance and I go to the ER. There's no CFR section that compels me to report the incident directly to FAA within 60 days (vis a vis 61.15). That ER trip may or may not result in a cardiovascular diagnosis. That's up to the ER doc, my PCP, and associated specialists. And if that diagnosis falls within 68.9, then my PCP won't sign off my CMEC and I'll be contacting my AME to initiate an SI.
Click to expand...
No you don't have to report it but you may have to self-ground.

I don't like it and I think it's extreme, but I can't say I blame the FAA on its stance on alcohol. It's just following the trend. I watched the societal pendulum shift from over-tolerance to zero tolerance in an incredibly short period of time. Saw the same with the FAA. I had a client a long time ago with an old DUI. A letter and a court record was all it took to clear him.

But things change. Except maybe for Ron White, I don't think there has been a viable comedian with a standard drunk persona since Dean Martin and Foster Brooks, and the reason has nothing to do with the FAA.
 
Back
Top