Brad Z
Final Approach
Not allowed to do what? Did they say why?
FAA announces Com Balloon medical requirement (and BasicMed Easter egg)
- Thread starter Brad Z
- Start date
Lindberg
Final Approach
The pilot would not have been able to obtain a medical. So the reasoning is apparently that if the regs had required a medical and he couldn't obtain one, he would not have conducted the flight. Because, of course, his actions demonstrated his deep and abiding desire to comply with regulations in every other way.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
- Messages
- 6,165
- Location
- Atlanta / Marietta
- Display Name
Display name:
Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
Got it.
No evidence that his past medical issues were present the day of the accident and contributed to his bad decision making.
Kind of like making a rule that anyone with his last name can’t fly. And that would have prevented the accident as well with the same level of causality.
No evidence that his past medical issues were present the day of the accident and contributed to his bad decision making.
Kind of like making a rule that anyone with his last name can’t fly. And that would have prevented the accident as well with the same level of causality.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 9,770
- Location
- Broken Arrow, OK
- Display Name
Display name:
SoonerAviator
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
this rule had nothing to do with evidence of anything. It was mandated by the Reauthorization Act in 2018. Congress required it so the FAA is implementing it. It's clear in the NPRM and Draft rule and the discussion of the comments that while some valid points are made, the FAA is required to implement this rule.
Here's the TLDR summary: The guy had ADHD and fibromyalgia and was taking quite a cocktail of prescription drugs, including bupropion, Prozac, diazepam, methylphenidate, oxycodone, diphenhydramine, dextromethorphan, and others. In addition, he had numerous DWI arrests and one drug bust in his rap sheet. By all appearances, he was also ill at the time of the flight. Every aspect of his decision making from preflight to impact was scrutinized and found to be lacking due to the drugs and the underlying conditions.
Their view was that since BasicMed was created by Congress, the FAA was powerless to make any changes at all. Saw the legislation as an absolute not as a minimum the FAA could liberalize.
guest user
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2021
- Messages
- 1,002
- Display Name
Display name:
just passing through
The rationale is a little deeper than that.
1, Without a medical, he could not have been employed as a commercial balloon pilot.
2, Without a qualified commercial balloon pilot, the company would not have been able to get insurance.
3, Without insurance, the company would not be to meet requirements of various states and thus would not exist.
There are still ways around this, but the idea seems to be provide smaller loophones.
Not quite, per the NPRM, section E
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...n-standards-for-commercial-balloon-operations
So yeah, the medication being in his system shows he was still dealing with his past medical issues.
If you read over the incident, we have a guy who royally screwed up in this case. I see no way to claim he was an innocent protagonist and was fine until the big mean NTSB / FAA showed up.
As to whether the response was appropriate, I don't really have a dog in that fight as I am not a balloonist nor do I see becoming a commercial one in my future.
Lindberg
Final Approach
The biggest loophole of all is that the operator just doesn't GAS. I have a second-class medical because my employer's insurance requires it even though I only exercise third-class privileges. So the flow above did not require this regulation.
Regardless, this wasn't a situation where the accident's cause wasn't already illegal. The pilot was medically unfit under the existing regulations, and the operation would have been illegal with any pilot. This is just another example of the FAA being pushed to "do something."
Last edited:
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 9,770
- Location
- Broken Arrow, OK
- Display Name
Display name:
SoonerAviator
It makes sense if you don't think about it, lol.
Not even then. There's no way,
The rules require more but my employer insists on less, so I break the rules
makes sense.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 6,524
- Display Name
Display name:
3G
I mean if you exchange first-class privileges with first-class services it makes more sense.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
- Messages
- 6,165
- Location
- Atlanta / Marietta
- Display Name
Display name:
Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
Were his past medical issues present that day at the time he made the bad decisions?
If they were, and as well if he was taking medications but they didn't get him to an appropriate cognitive level, then you have a persuasive argument that a medical would have been helpful.
Did the prescriptions he had in his system have a side effect of cognitive impairment? If so, then maybe a medical would have prevented the accident, as he would have been more aware of "do not take" drugs. (Assuming he wasn't going to just ignore the rules completely anyway).
The law passed by Congress (FESSA) commanded the FAA to make a certain regulation. To fast-track that through the system, they weren't going to make any changes. Now, after the fact, they can make their own changes to it as the FAA is empowered by the various enabling legislation to make such things and FESSA didn't make any restrictions on the FAA changing things later on.
Yes, and then some. And it wasn't as argued earlier that he didn't see the power lines.
I'm tired of regurgitating the NTSB report. Brad linked it above. Go ahead and read this. There's no way this guy would have even gotten a 3rd class, and for good reason. His own doctors concluded that the drugs were not effectively controlling the symptoms of both his ADHD and depression. Further, any one of the drugs he was taking was likely to be imparing when taken while flying.
Of course.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
- Messages
- 6,165
- Location
- Atlanta / Marietta
- Display Name
Display name:
Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
Appreciate you risking acid reflux for the POA.
Brad Z
Final Approach
What's notable about this particular finding was that the NTSB specifically called out the FAA's lack of a requirement for a medical certificate as a contributing factor in the accident. Safety recommendations from accidents are commonplace but it's unusual to see a lack of regulation cited in the probable cause discussion.
Lindberg
Final Approach
That should have been "third-class privileges."
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I figured, but with all the crap you give people for not being precise and articulate, I couldn't let it slide.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Your crap was entirely appropriate.
Todd82
Line Up and Wait
With all the rules we face about we can't even let someone pay for the whole tank of gas without being on a 135 cert and 2nd class med, it's amazing balloon rides for hire were allowed to exist basically as the wild wild west all this long, not even requiring a basic med.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Wait till they find out you don't need a medical even to be an instructor in gliders.
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
Did you have to go there?.....this is why we can't have anything nice around here.
Would it be fair to summarize the language of the legislation as requiring the FAA to permit certain privileges, but not prohibiting the FAA from permitting additional privileges?
I suppose that one exception to my summary would be that the FAA might not be allowed to do away with the requirement for a doctor's exam altogether.
...that the FAA might not be allowed to do away with the requirement for a doctor's exam altogether.
Maybe not, but the FAA could make the class 3 match Basic and allow any state-licensed physician to perform it.
Hold not thy breath.
Weren't both those pilots ATPs?
NoHeat
Final Approach
They were both ATPs with over 1500 hours.
I would not add that exception. I don't see anything in the Congressional language for BasicMed that requires the FAA to require anything.Would it be fair to summarize the language of the legislation as requiring the FAA to permit certain privileges, but not prohibiting the FAA from permitting additional privileges?
I suppose that one exception to my summary would be that the FAA might not be allowed to do away with the requirement for a doctor's exam altogether.
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—
(think, sport pilot rule)
OTOH, there might be other legislation that sets minimum standards for medical qualification for certain activities.
There we go. I was too lazy to look it up, but that wording quashes the idea that the FAA couldn't make the rules more permissive that the statute.
Todd82
Line Up and Wait
IMHO taking a load of general public paying passengers owes the public more regulations / less risk than giving a lesson to a single student pilot who is already assuming some of the risks.
40YearDream
Pre-takeoff checklist
From the FAA NPRM page 26 (r/e Basic Med safety pilot):
"The FAA encourages pilots to seek opportunities to increase proficiency through operations, such as simulated instrument flying. As such, the FAA proposes to alleviate the current burden on safety pilots by allowing persons to operate under BasicMed while serving as required pilot flightcrew members." [(footnote: A safety pilot is a person who occupies a control seat in an aircraft and maintains a visual watch when the pilot manipulating the flight controls of the aircraft is using a view-limiting device to simulate flight by reference to instruments. See 14 CFR 91.109.]
Sounds like a good change!
"The FAA encourages pilots to seek opportunities to increase proficiency through operations, such as simulated instrument flying. As such, the FAA proposes to alleviate the current burden on safety pilots by allowing persons to operate under BasicMed while serving as required pilot flightcrew members." [(footnote: A safety pilot is a person who occupies a control seat in an aircraft and maintains a visual watch when the pilot manipulating the flight controls of the aircraft is using a view-limiting device to simulate flight by reference to instruments. See 14 CFR 91.109.]
Sounds like a good change!
Lindberg
Final Approach
Balloons can certainly carry more people at a time, but plenty of non-students pay for glider rides. And have no idea whether their pilot has a medical certificate.
Yup.
§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
* * * * *
(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:...
* * * * *
(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:...
This takes effect 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Last edited:
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
And many of those have no idea that medical requirements exist for anyone.
bottom line, though, is as long as no incidents/accidents happen that can be tied this closely to medical condition, the glider medical requirements won’t be looked at any closer than anything else.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
Or no incidents/accidents that cause public outcry and get the attention of the local Congressman...
The Final Rule was officially published today.
The safety pilot fix goes into effect December 22.
(the commercial balloon class 2 requirement takes effect in May)
The safety pilot fix goes into effect December 22.
(the commercial balloon class 2 requirement takes effect in May)