LIke I said, I'm not yet ascribing hostility, just bureaucratic lethargy. We'll see what the inquiries bring.
Basic Med ineligible for FAA PROTE training
- Thread starter gkainz
- Start date
AggieMike88
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 20,804
- Location
- Denton, TX
- Display Name
Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
Having done the class and the PROTE when it came to North Texas years ago, it was very educational. So yes, it is a good idea for all pilots.
Here's the response from Dr Berry. Definitely wisps of the lawyers
I am sorry you are caught in this situation, because I agree that this is excellent and important training especially for those pilots flying at higher altitudes. As you are aware, it is our policy that anyone taking the PROTE training must have at least an FAA 3rd Class Medical Certificate. This is not a change in policy, but maintaining a long standing policy. Let me emphasize that the PROTE is not entirely without risk. For this reason, we require a physical examination in which we are confidant of the quality. We train our AMEs every 3 years, and do surveillance audits of them almost as frequently. A BasicMed qualification is not equivalent to a 3rd Class Medical Certificate. We do not have any oversight of the physical examinations done as part of the BasicMed process. For this reason, and the potential for liability, we will continue our policy of requiring an FAA 3rd Class Medical Certificate at a minimum. If you are serious about getting this training, I recommend that you get a 3rd Class Medical Certificate, in addition to your BasicMed qualification, take the PROTE training, and let the Medical Certificate expire naturally.
I am sorry you are caught in this situation, because I agree that this is excellent and important training especially for those pilots flying at higher altitudes. As you are aware, it is our policy that anyone taking the PROTE training must have at least an FAA 3rd Class Medical Certificate. This is not a change in policy, but maintaining a long standing policy. Let me emphasize that the PROTE is not entirely without risk. For this reason, we require a physical examination in which we are confidant of the quality. We train our AMEs every 3 years, and do surveillance audits of them almost as frequently. A BasicMed qualification is not equivalent to a 3rd Class Medical Certificate. We do not have any oversight of the physical examinations done as part of the BasicMed process. For this reason, and the potential for liability, we will continue our policy of requiring an FAA 3rd Class Medical Certificate at a minimum. If you are serious about getting this training, I recommend that you get a 3rd Class Medical Certificate, in addition to your BasicMed qualification, take the PROTE training, and let the Medical Certificate expire naturally.
idahoflier
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,746
- Display Name
Display name:
idahoflier
Thanks for posting the reply. I still think there is a bit of vindictiveness in the decision. Prior to BasicMed the 2nd Class Physicals I received from the AME I saw were a joke. The annual physicals I receive from my PCP are much more thorough and comprehensive. But, whatever...
Grum.Man
En-Route
His response is what I felt the reasoning was for. Right or wrong it comes down to liability.
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,669
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
Yeah, my high-school track physical was more [cough!] comprehensive.
airdale
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
airdale
I got a ride in the chamber three or four years ago when it was in town. I had a 2nd Class at the time but I'm 99.9% certain that I was not asked to show it. Possibly I was asked if I held it; I would not remembered that.
benyflyguy
En-Route
Where can I find the schedule for that thing! That looks very interesting.
PROTE is a FAA CAMI project. It's a device and staff that goes on the road when an organization requests it, otherwise you can make a request to go thru the entire physiological training at CAMI in OKC. The local Women in Aviation chapter requested it late last year, IIRC, and have invited pretty much all the other GA organizations in the area. 2-3 years ago the New Mexico Pilots Assoc. hosted it in ABQ.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/cami/
The question that needs to be asked is which exposes a glider or BasicMed pilot to greater risk, hypoxia in their ground-based facility, or hypoxia in an aircraft? It's really nuts if these people think that protecting the federal government from liability is more important than helping pilots be safe while airborne. (Am I right in thinking that federal employees are protected from personal liability for decisions made within the scope of their duties?)
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,609
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
That is an ideal not reality.
The government is not libel if you go fly and die from hypoxia.
However you step in there chamber and die from hypoxia, they are screwed.
Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
What is your source for that information?
Lindberg
Final Approach
At the very least, there'd be investigations, and the program would either be shut down or the rules would become significantly more stringent.
A government agency negligently killing people is not a good look. Especially when the agency has an existing process for evaluating pilots' health.
The Dr. is indisputably correct that Basic Med is not the equivalent of a 3rd class; it is, however, a substitute for certain purposes. So maybe some qualified folks can convince him it's an acceptable substitute in this case.
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
Pretty much the long and official version of what I wrote in post #25.
BasicMed has restrictions, we all know that. Just consider this one of them and be happy that BasicMed allows what it does. If you want to not have these restrictions, get a third class or better.
Amen to that!
azure
Final Approach
I think this is one the FAA is not being unreasonable about. There are plenty of conditions that do not require a one time SI under BasicMed that impair O2 saturation and/or delivery that could make it dangerous for someone in a reduced oxygen environment. I'm pretty sure that includes pulmonary disorders like COPD, IPF, etc., though the doctors on here might have better information.
bflynn
Final Approach
Not Invented Here. BasicMed is BETTER in many ways than a 3rd class. Getting a 3rd class is about getting a certificate to fly - check the boxes right, make sure my BP is good, look at the eye chart. Talking with my doctor is about my health and BTW, yes you're healthy enough to fly. Trust me, my doctor and I talk about things that will never come up on a 3rd class. No AME has ever talked with me about stressfull situations and what to look for. AMEs are like quality control on a production line - a little brutal, but true.
I'm far more prepared to fly because of BasicMed and having a doctor who knows me and cares about my health too.
"And the potential for liability" says it all.
While you are correct, isn’t part of the point for pilots to learn how they’re body will react while on the ground in controlled conditions instead of in flight?
Denying these pilots may avoid an issue in simulated conditions, but it doesn’t help the bigger problem. To me, it seems that this should be available to any pilot who can legally fly where hypoxia is a significant risk. The FAA’s charter is flight safety, and this decision does not improve that.
azure
Final Approach
Of course, I agree 100%. But the FAA also would also be liable if someone had an emergency in their simulator. At least with a 3rd class, they could argue that they had done their due diligence.
One possible way out might be to have pilots sign a waiver of liability, sort of an informed consent agreement. But I don't know whether documents like that are really sufficiently immunizing. I would like to hear from legal experts on that.
The third class is a lousy screen for flying and a particularly lousy one for this purpose. I'll disagree with Azure. There are many things that aren't screened on the third that could be a problem. By the way, impaired o2 sat is what PROTE is all about. People with COPD probably do better, until someone puts them on 100% oxygen and eliminates the hypoxic drive and causes them to stop breathing.
There's no more or less liability issue for the federal government with basic med vs. the third class. Either way, they could argue that they were safe assuming the pilot was cleared by a doctor to fly (one way or the other). Further, the feds don't typically give a rats ass if they get sued or not. You can't sue the individual employees and the tort claims act makes it a tough slog on the agency.
There's no more or less liability issue for the federal government with basic med vs. the third class. Either way, they could argue that they were safe assuming the pilot was cleared by a doctor to fly (one way or the other). Further, the feds don't typically give a rats ass if they get sued or not. You can't sue the individual employees and the tort claims act makes it a tough slog on the agency.
Folks....it's great to propose counter arguments, most are exceptionally valid. But there is no benefit or possibility to change the rules unless you make these arguments to TPTB.
One benefit of discussing arguments here is that the give-and-take helps evaluate which arguments are worth presenting to the feds. And even with persuasive arguments, it's helpful to have allies.
Very true.
To add to the arguments - the physician who did the BasicMed on me is my family physician, and is the person who writes all the letters and provides all the documentation for my previous SI (which is not longer needed, even if I were Class 3). Not only that, he's a retired USAF Flight Surgeon and probably has more FAA/AME knowledge than 80% of the AMEs out there. [Our 2 AMEs on the board here are in the top 1% of the top 1% as far as I'm concerned!]
When I had a problem with my eye 10 years ago, he knew exactly what tests were going to be needed, so when I showed up at the AME's office, everything was ready to go. Each time the AME said "well, you're gonna need this test", all I did was hand him the test results and opinion from the specialist. After about 30 min of this, over and over, the AME looks at me and says "come back after lunch, I'll have the Class 3 typed up for you".
Last edited:
Just a thought. It seems you can go to 63,776 feet without any medical at all now. (reference here) Me thinks PROTE training would be useful in this case, and those like it.
idahoflier
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,746
- Display Name
Display name:
idahoflier
Does anyone here really think the FAA will be protected from any lawsuit if someone holding a current FAA Medical Certificate has a significant issue or dies in the PROTE? Not a chance...
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,609
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Yes, they will be able to argue in court, and likely win, that they were not negligent, they used a basis of standard of care/health (and they have the only "industry standard"). They may get sued, but I doubt anyone would win.
Tim
idahoflier
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,746
- Display Name
Display name:
idahoflier
Really? We're talking aviation AND healthcare here. Let's hope it never gets tested...
When I took my USAF Chamber ride 100 years ago, the Flight Surgeon told me my symptoms would likely be the same forever. Not knowingly having experienced Hypoxia since, I’ve no clue if that’s true but I sure do remember them vividly to this day.
It’s a shame Basic Med excludes others from a similar experience.
Cheers
It’s a shame Basic Med excludes others from a similar experience.
Cheers
Are you an attorney?
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,609
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Nope. If I was, i would have the standard disclaimers that this is not a client relationship and does not constitute legal advice, blah, blah blah...
Instead, it is the internet, where my opinion is worth what you paid for it
I actually am a technical executive, and have spent a fair amount of time with lawyers over the years, and dealt with some liability issues. So I have a descent perspective and understanding on how the system works (enough to get myself into a lot of trouble!).
Tim