Basic Med - Safety Pilot Work-A-Round

None at all from my experience. I have Primary complete the Basic Med documents every year after my annual physical, come home do the AOPA online course and enjoy life. Yes, I don’t have to do either every year, but if my Primary moves or retires it gives me ample time to find a replacement.
 
Ventucky Red said:
Complimenting going Basic Med and I see this will preclude me from flying safety pilot without using the work-a-round out lined from AOPA.

https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/news/2017/september/01/basicmed-and-safety-pilots

In short.... what can of worms I am opening up with this?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "can of worms"? Serving as safety pilot and acting as PIC has been a common operation practice long before BasicMed came along. This practice is often used in time building as both the pilot manipulating the controls and the safety pilot-PIC (by virtue of acting as a required crew member when the flying pilot is using a view limiting device) can log PIC flight time under 61.51(e).

FWIW, the new Balloon Medical NPRM includes a technical amendment to fix this so this shouldn't be an issue much longer.
 
midlifeflyer said:
What do you mean by "work-around"? @Brad Z is right. This has been very standard practice for decades when both pilots involved are qualified to act as PIC.
Click to expand...
Technically the pilot manipulating the controls does not need to qualify to act as PIC in order to log PIC flight time. He or she only needs to be rated (category/class/type) in the aircraft and be the sole manipulator of the controls. They can be out of flight review recency, no medical, etc., but as long as they have the ratings on their certificate let can log it as PIC flight time.
 
Gents...

Where am I not connecting the dots here?

Now for the critical limitation: under federal law, BasicMed only applies to a pilot acting as PIC and does not apply to required pilot flight crewmembers like the safety pilot in the example above. When acting as a required pilot flight crewmember, FAR 61.3(c) requires the safety pilot to have a valid and appropriate medical certificate.


The simple solution for a BasicMed pilot who wants to act as a safety pilot under FAR 91.109(c) without a medical certificate is to meet all currency and qualification requirements to act as PIC, and to act as PIC during the portions of the flight in simulated instrument conditions. Even though the pilot under the hood cannot simultaneously act as PIC, the simulated instrument flight still satisfies that pilot’s recent flight experience requirements for a PIC under FAR 61.57, since that regulation does not require the pilot to be acting as PIC while he or she performed the required tasks during the simulated instrument flight.
Click to expand...
 
Brad Z said:
Technically the pilot manipulating the controls does not need to qualify to act as PIC in order to log PIC flight time. He or she only needs to be rated (category/class/type) in the aircraft and be the sole manipulator of the controls. They can be out of flight review recency, no medical, etc., but as long as they have the ratings on their certificate let can log it as PIC flight time.
Click to expand...
Of course, but the question and my comment are about the safety pilot, who is not manipulating the controls, logging PIC time.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Of course, but the question and my comment are about the safety pilot, who is not manipulating the controls, logging PIC time.
Click to expand...
I know you know that, but this seems to be a commonly misunderstood concept and I just wanted to clarify, lest this thread go on for 5 pages arguing over “acting as PIC” versus “logging PIC”.
 
The only potential rub is that by requiring the BasicMed safety pilot to be PIC, you may run into insurance requirements or limitations when flying in someone else's airplane. It should be possible to work this out with the insurer. I think Congress is working on fixing this loophole as a part of upcoming legislation?
 
chemgeek said:
The only potential rub is that by requiring the BasicMed safety pilot to be PIC, you may run into insurance requirements or limitations when flying in someone else's airplane. It should be possible to work this out with the insurer. I think Congress is working on fixing this loophole as a part of upcoming legislation?
Click to expand...
The FAA is planning to fix it in a pending rulemaking. See @Brad Z's post earlier in the thread.
 
chemgeek said:
The only potential rub is that by requiring the BasicMed safety pilot to be PIC, you may run into insurance requirements or limitations when flying in someone else's airplane. It should be possible to work this out with the insurer. I think Congress is working on fixing this loophole as a part of upcoming legislation?
Click to expand...

midlifeflyer said:
The FAA is planning to fix it in a pending rulemaking. See @Brad Z's post earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as I understand it, the legislation that required the BasicMed rules to be created does not prohibited the FAA from allowing additional privileges through rule-making.
 
Palmpilot said:
Yeah, as I understand it, the legislation that required the BasicMed rules to be created does not prohibited the FAA from allowing additional privileges through rule-making.
Click to expand...
Yup…The FAA is apparently fixing Congress’ mistake. ;)
 
Palmpilot said:
Yeah, as I understand it, the legislation that required the BasicMed rules to be created does not prohibited the FAA from allowing additional privileges through rule-making.
Click to expand...
You understand it correctly. In plain English, the Congressional act said, "FAA, you have to liberalize the medical requirements for private pilots acting as PIC at least this much." Never said it can't make it more expansive. I know there have been pilots on forums insisting that because it was an act of Congress, the FAA was powerless to change it in any way. I guess that's just the level of civics education.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You understand it correctly. In plain English, the Congressional act said, "FAA, you have to liberalize the medical requirements for private pilots acting as PIC at least this much." Never said it can't make it more expansive. I know there have been pilots on forums insisting that because it was an act of Congress, the FAA was powerless to change it in any way. I guess that's just the level of civics education.
Click to expand...
Practically speaking, the FAA was limited in rolling fast and loose with interpretations of Congress’s very specific wording because BasicMed was implemented without public comment. If the FAA were to go further than Congress specified, the FAA would have to explain why, make a case for it, seek comment and respond to those comments. Congress gave the FAA a year to implement the law. FAA had no choice but to implement BasicMed verbatim from statute…to do otherwise would violate the administrative procedure act.
 
Brad Z said:
Practically speaking, the FAA was limited in rolling fast and loose with interpretations of Congress’s very specific wording because BasicMed was implemented without public comment. If the FAA were to go further than Congress specified, the FAA would have to explain why, make a case for it, seek comment and respond to those comments. Congress gave the FAA a year to implement the law. FAA had no choice but to implement BasicMed verbatim from statute…to do otherwise would violate the administrative procedure act.
Click to expand...
Yes, the FAA would have needed to go through the NPRM and justification process for its own original rulemaking - as it is could have done well before the act was passed and as it doing now. But the comments I was referring to went much further. They argued that FESSA itself precluded any tinkering, then or in the future. That the FAA was powerless to fix it without additional Congressiinal action.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You understand it correctly. In plain English, the Congressional act said, "FAA, you have to liberalize the medical requirements for private pilots acting as PIC at least this much." Never said it can't make it more expansive. I know there have been pilots on forums insisting that because it was an act of Congress, the FAA was powerless to change it in any way. I guess that's just the level of civics education.
Click to expand...
It also reflects their not reading the opening paragraph of Section 2307(a) of the act, which by its language required the FAA to permit things, not prohibit things:

"IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall issue or revise regulations to ensure that
an individual may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft
if..."​
 
Palmpilot said:
It also reflects their not reading the opening paragraph of Section 2307(a) of the act, which by its language required the FAA to permit things, not prohibit things:

"IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall issue or revise regulations to ensure that
an individual may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft
if..."​
Click to expand...
Yep. That's the language I read too. "An individual may operate as pilot in command" does not equal! "And in no other capacity"
 
BladeSlap said:
?
Click to expand...
Congress is not the FAA and might not realize the collateral effects of its actions. Congress was focused on pilots acting as PIC and probably did not even consider the safety pilot scenario. "Mistake" may not be the proper term but it describes the situation pretty well
 
midlifeflyer said:
Congress is not the FAA and might not realize the collateral effects of its actions. Congress was focused on pilots acting as PIC and probably did not even consider the safety pilot scenario. "Mistake" may not be the proper term but it describes the situation pretty well
Click to expand...

Based on the posts here, could anyone mishandle aviation medical worse than the FAA?
 
Now they just need to allow DPEs to operate under BasicMed. I might actually want to do that in the future...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
crash7 said:
Now they just need to allow DPEs to operate under BasicMed. I might actually want to do that in the future...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Airline plots should be able to operate under basic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top