Any tips for finding a doc that will do BasicMed?

[mcmanigle]

How is that different from a DOT exam or a sports physical? When I was racing cars I had to have a physical and never once had a doc balk at it. Flying seems like less risk than racing.

DOT is like FAA medical. There are specifications the MD is certifying you meet. Would be interested in the form for the racing physical. Many say something like “no greater than average risk” or similar which is much more reasonable to sign than “don’t know of anything that could interfere.”

 

[Lindberg]

Isn’t it normal for the AME to look at your undercarriage during a Class 3?

No.

 

[robin ardoin]

DOT is like FAA medical. There are specifications the MD is certifying you meet. Would be interested in the form for the racing physical. Many say something like “no greater than average risk” or similar which is much more reasonable to sign than “don’t know of anything that could interfere.”

Here ya' go:

 

[robin ardoin]

Based on some of the on track moves I've encountered it makes me wonder if some Docs were skipping the peripheral vision exam on some competitors.....

 

[mcmanigle]

Here ya' go:

Yeah, again, with the wording there of "If the applicant experiences any physical or medical limitations that would potentially affect their ability to tolerate the demands of racing, approval should not be given," I sure as hell wouldn't sign it.

Again, I think this whole medicolegal structure is stupid, and I wish it weren't this way, but as an MD I would never sign something that uses absolute language.

I approve people to have surgery all the time with language like "this patient is at average risk" or "this patient is at higher than average risk" or "this patient has higher risk because of X Y and Z, which I discussed with them and they elect to proceed." I would never sign something that says "this patient has no medical conditions that could potentially cause surgery to go badly." It's just so rarely true.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yeah, again, with the wording there of "If the applicant experiences any physical or medical limitations that would potentially affect their ability to tolerate the demands of racing, approval should not be given," I sure as hell wouldn't sign it.

Again, I think this whole medicolegal structure is stupid, and I wish it weren't this way, but as an MD I would never sign something that uses absolute language.

I approve people to have surgery all the time with language like "this patient is at average risk" or "this patient is at higher than average risk" or "this patient has higher risk because of X Y and Z, which I discussed with them and they elect to proceed." I would never sign something that says "this patient has no medical conditions that could potentially cause surgery to go badly." It's just so rarely true.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Pinecone]

Based on some of the on track moves I've encountered it makes me wonder if some Docs were skipping the peripheral vision exam on some competitors.....

So true.

But there is a difference between not seeing and not looking.

 

[FORANE]

WNL is medical speak for we never looked.

 

[robin ardoin]

WNL is medical speak for we never looked.

That’s a good one! Gas passer I presume? But not old enough for cyclopropane as a screen name.

 

[1RTK1]

Have there been instances of successful lawsuits against physicians who approved a pilot for Basic Med?

I can't imagine any "physicians" being held liable anymore than an AME. A 3rd class medical exam is a joke compared to what I have when I went basic med. I did this because my personal physician doesn't charge me as a professional courtesy and he does a COMPLETE physical when I go in which is far beyond what any 3rd class I have ever taken.