FAA Issues General Aviation Medical Rule

For all who are upset this "doesn't go far enough" and that "AOPA didn't accomplish", you are more than free in this country to start lobbying your Reps and Senators to pass the next leg of the reform you want. This doesn't have to be the endpoint, it can be the starting point.

Instead of whining, start working to get what you want passed.
 
hotprops said:
i do not think the $250k fine and jail-time on the doctors form to be signed is a good thing as he will be on his own as his med malpractice insurance will not help.
Click to expand...
I wonder if DOT medical forms have a similar statement.
 
Palmpilot said:
I wonder if DOT medical forms have a similar statement.
Click to expand...
I checked and they only have a similar statement where the applicant signs, not where the doctor signs. Warning or not, I would think that a doctor would be committing a crime by falsifying the exam and would probably be aware of that.
 
KennyC said:
Yeah, I asked AOPA about this too, and they told me much the same thing. Although I wasn't terribly impressed with the rep's suggestion that "it really only applies if you got ramp checked and then you could just say you were wearing contacts..." :rolleyes2:

I'm with you guys, common sense says if I've had my eyes fixed then I no longer need corrective lenses. But we all know how the government can lack common sense!
Click to expand...
If you've had your eyes fixed, why would you still have a "corrective lenses" restriction?
 
Lindberg said:
If you've had your eyes fixed, why would you still have a "corrective lenses" restriction?
Click to expand...
Because he didn't take the AME eye test or send in an 8500-7 after his vision stabilized.
 
Calling Dr. Bruce

According to a website

The disqualifying conditions are as follows:

(1) Diabetes mellitus requiring hypoglycemic medication

Does this mean that Type 1 is a no-go and Type 2 is ok or are both Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes disqualifying?
 
mulligan said:
Calling Dr. Bruce

According to a website

The disqualifying conditions are as follows:

(1) Diabetes mellitus requiring hypoglycemic medication

Does this mean that Type 1 is a no-go and Type 2 is ok or are both Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes disqualifying?
Click to expand...
Both are disqualifying, you would need a SI as long as everything is under control and you are not on any FAA banned medication

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
flyingron said:
Where you lifted that are the list of disqualifying conditions for normal medical issuance. As mentioned in the link above, you can get issued on oral meds or even the type I special issuance. Once you've been issued a medical, diabetes is no more restricted than anything else for the medical-free flight.
Click to expand...

It would be great if you currently hold a 3rd class medical with an SI for Diabetes if you were able to participate in the BasicMed program but am still not clear 100% on if you will be able to or not and if you are able to if there will be still annual reporting requirements under the SI. That is why I asked clarification. It seems too early to be able to determine with 100% how the current SI approvals will be handled. Keeping fingers crossed for myself and many others. While I have no problem meeting the class 3 SI requirements, the timing sometimes becomes a hassle for me based on when blood tests are done vs. when they are acceptable and how the dates fall etc.. I hate having to go to the doc and say I need a new blood draw because the one we did a 90 days ago is expired.
 
mulligan said:
It would be great if you currently hold a 3rd class medical with an SI for Diabetes if you were able to participate in the BasicMed program but am still not clear 100% on if you will be able to or not and if you are able to if there will be still annual reporting requirements under the SI. That is why I asked clarification. It seems too early to be able to determine with 100% how the current SI approvals will be handled. Keeping fingers crossed for myself and many others. While I have no problem meeting the class 3 SI requirements, the timing sometimes becomes a hassle for me based on when blood tests are done vs. when they are acceptable and how the dates fall etc.. I hate having to go to the doc and say I need a new blood draw because the one we did a 90 days ago is expired.
Click to expand...
The way I interpret this is, if u have a valid 3rs class medical with or without SI, u r good for basic med. But I cud be completely wrong

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
"BasicMed is the best thing to happen to general aviation in decades," said AOPA President and CEO Mark Baker.

If that statement is accurate, it is about the most depressing thing I've ever read.
 
I find the easiest way to interpret the new "BasicMed" requirements in this way...........
All the requirements of the 3rd Class Medical remain the same. YOU, as pilot in command are now responsible for determining fitness for flight, not the FAA.
So, if you have an SI for diabetes, you should be under the care of your personal physician, maintaining control of your condition. If this is NOT the case, you should not be flying.
In other words, the FAA is putting the ongoing responsibility of determining your medical condition on you and your personal physician.
This is NOT a change to the medical fitness requirement, only a change to WHO makes the decisions.
 
Cruiser said:
I find the easiest way to interpret the new "BasicMed" requirements in this way...........
All the requirements of the 3rd Class Medical remain the same. YOU, as pilot in command are now responsible for determining fitness for flight, not the FAA.
So, if you have an SI for diabetes, you should be under the care of your personal physician, maintaining control of your condition. If this is NOT the case, you should not be flying.
In other words, the FAA is putting the ongoing responsibility of determining your medical condition on you and your personal physician.
This is NOT a change to the medical fitness requirement, only a change to WHO makes the decisions.
Click to expand...

But even now, with a fresh Class III in my pocket, I'm still required to determine my own fitness for flight before climbing into the cockpit each time. How is this any different? It's taking the FAA out from between you and your doctor, and eliminates the tests the FAA sometimes requires even when your treating doctor says the tests are medically unnecessary . . .

It's a step in the right direction.
 
hotprops said:
wait till he sees the form:eek:
Click to expand...
Maybe. Maybe not. I can see it both ways. Doctors certify people as physically ok for all sort of activities. Return to work at stressful and dangerous jobs after heart attacks and other injuries. To exercise. There are probably many medical opinions that have been given to the FAA that, even if it wasn't asked, said, "ok to fly." And tying an air crash to a specific medical deficiency? Not that easy. It may not be as big a deal as we think.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Maybe. Maybe not. I can see it both ways. Doctors certify people as physically ok for all sort of activities. Return to work at stressful and dangerous jobs after heart attacks and other injuries. To exercise. There are probably many medical opinions that have been given to the FAA that, even if it wasn't asked, said, "ok to fly." And tying an air crash to a specific medical deficiency? Not that easy. It may not be as big a deal as we think.
Click to expand...
yes but those forms dont have the words $250k fine and jail just above the sig line
correction it is in caps in the dr form instruction page
 
Last edited:
hotprops said:
yes but those forms dont have the words $250k fine and jail just above the sig line
Click to expand...
Well hopefully, the doctors involved will not be "knowingly and willingly" falsifying, concealing, or covering up material facts.
 
hotprops said:
yes but those forms dont have the words $250k fine and jail just above the sig line
correction it is in caps in the dr form instruction page
Click to expand...
That penalty is for knowingly falsifying information on the form. As long as the doctor isn't doing this (e.g. pencil-whipping the exam), I don't see this as a problem. If the pilot lies on the form, that's not on the doctor's head. I'm sure the doctor has signed similar statements on other forms before, either in a personal or maybe even professional capacity. As others have pointed out in the past, the part a doctor might be worried about is where it says "I certify that I am not aware of any condition that, as presently treated, would render the applicant unsafe to fly," or words to that effect, since that places liability on the doctor in case of medical incapacitation. Even there, I'm not sure it is clear what it would take to trigger that liability, since all the doctor is expected to do is follow the checklist and conduct the exam in a competent fashion. Still, the possibility of getting sued might scare some away from doing this.

On a personal note, I asked my PCP if she would be willing to sign me off some months ago, and she said she would have no problem. That was before I realized that she would have to be a "state licensed physician" to be eligible, and unfortunately, she's an NP. So I might end up going to my AME after all, though I haven't asked him yet if he will be doing BasicMed physicals.

At the moment I'm getting my ducks in a row to get my 3rd class back after a year and a half of being grounded. (In fact, I'm on the road at the moment about to get some testing done at significant expense. The effective date of May 1 caught me totally by surprise as I expected it to be much later. Had I known that, I would probably not have made this appointment - but I'm already on the hook for the charges so I might as well get 'er done.)

In the future though, no question I'll be doing BasicMed - for me personally this is a BIG improvement.
 
I'd also point out that it's not just a question of whether one is healthy or not. Anyone who has used their doctor frequently for preventative medicine and also mentioned passing symptoms is likely to carry one or two diagnoses the FAA considers disqualifying. It's a common misconception that only major illnesses require SIs; you can be quite fit and still have a "nuisance" condition that the FAA decides needs an SI by the catch-all clause 67.313(b). Or you might have had symptoms years ago that earned you a diagnosis the FAA doesn't like. The diagnosis might even be bogus, but proving that to the FAA's satisfaction can be effectively impossible. If you're caught in perpetual SI hell for ANY reason, where you need to shell out several AMUs a year for medically unnecessary tests, BasicMed might look very appealing.

Don't think that a letter of eligibility gets you home free either, OKC can always reverse their decision for no apparent reason. I received a LOE in 2004, then 10 years later the FAA decided I should be on an SI after all for two diagnoses that hadn't changed (one of which is almost certainly bogus).
 
We can try and look at the positive aspects of BasicMed but this wasn't the original intent of getting rid of the 3rd class. The whole premise was to was to get rid of any required physical, fly under a DL and to self evaluate. The 48 month physical and online course were snuck in under the radar. I guarantee the course will identify specific medical conditions that disqualify appicants. Not all physicians are going to sign off on a checklist that shows a history or meds that they believe are disqualifying either.

So, while we could look at the brighter side in saving a whopping $100 and a visit to the AME, BasicMed is not the original intent of the elimination of the 3rd class.
 
Velocity173 said:
We can try and look at the positive aspects of BasicMed but this wasn't the original intent of getting rid of the 3rd class. The whole premise was to was to get rid of any required physical, fly under a DL and to self evaluate. The 48 month physical and online course were snuck in under the radar. I guarantee the course will identify specific medical conditions that disqualify appicants. Not all physicians are going to sign off on a checklist that shows a history or meds that they believe are disqualifying either.

So, while we could look at the brighter side in saving a whopping $100 and a visit to the AME, BasicMed is not the original intent of the elimination of the 3rd class.
Click to expand...
So was the original intent for GA pilots to be able to fly even if they have medical conditions that have a high risk of in-flight incapacitation or impairment?
 
Brad Z said:
So was the original intent for GA pilots to be able to fly even if they have medical conditions that have a high risk of in-flight incapacitation or impairment?
Click to expand...

Of course not but the intent was to lessen the red tape associated with getting a 3rd class. I don't see where BasicMed improved on that much.

Fortunately, I've had 25 yrs of hassle free class 1 -3 medicals but I can understand those who are tired of dealing with the FAA process.
 
Last edited:
hotprops said:
yes but those forms dont have the words $250k fine and jail just above the sig line
correction it is in caps in the dr form instruction page
Click to expand...
Some do, some don't. But just about any intentional lie on a government form or document intended for government use is a federal felony punishing by up to 5 years in prison. And there are equivalent state criminal laws also. Some forms say that, some forms don't.
 
Brad Z said:
So was the original intent for GA pilots to be able to fly even if they have medical conditions that have a high risk of in-flight incapacitation or impairment?
Click to expand...
None of that has been the least bit proven to be an issue. A comparison of incapacitation accidents between powered planes (with pilots with medical) and gliders (self certification) show that there weren't many of either. In fact, a few of the glider cases were things that would NOT have been detected in a third class exam most likley anyhow (one guy had a massive stroke with no precursor).

Indeed the initial proposal was to let the FAA figure out how to allow non-commercial aviation without a medical. After the DOT sat on that effort, congress decided to get involved in more detail and we got what we got. It's more liberal in some aspects (I think the FAA was not going to allow IFR and limit things to four seats) but more restrictive in others (having to have had at least one FAA medical and a MD sign off).
 
flyingron said:
None of that has been the least bit proven to be an issue. A comparison of incapacitation accidents between powered planes (with pilots with medical) and gliders (self certification) show that there weren't many of either. In fact, a few of the glider cases were things that would NOT have been detected in a third class exam most likley anyhow (one guy had a massive stroke with no precursor).

Indeed the initial proposal was to let the FAA figure out how to allow non-commercial aviation without a medical. After the DOT sat on that effort, congress decided to get involved in more detail and we got what we got. It's more liberal in some aspects (I think the FAA was not going to allow IFR and limit things to four seats) but more restrictive in others (having to have had at least one FAA medical and a MD sign off).
Click to expand...

The initial proposal limited to you to one passenger. You could fly a plane with up to four seats but only have two of them filled. That would have been deal breaker for me since I rarely fly with less than two passengers.
 
flyingron said:
None of that has been the least bit proven to be an issue. A comparison of incapacitation accidents between powered planes (with pilots with medical) and gliders (self certification) show that there weren't many of either. In fact, a few of the glider cases were things that would NOT have been detected in a third class exam most likley anyhow (one guy had a massive stroke with no precursor).

Indeed the initial proposal was to let the FAA figure out how to allow non-commercial aviation without a medical. After the DOT sat on that effort, congress decided to get involved in more detail and we got what we got. It's more liberal in some aspects (I think the FAA was not going to allow IFR and limit things to four seats) but more restrictive in others (having to have had at least one FAA medical and a MD sign off).
Click to expand...

My point is that I think everyone can agree that there are some medical conditions that people should not be flying with. And in some cases, people with those conditions may otherwise feel fine and healthy.

I think we can all also agree that we should also regularly go to the doctor for health checkups. (that's a joke...we're all grumpy old men who refuse to go to the doctor unless we've been impaled by a fence-post)

The product that we're seeing here is a result of Congressional compromise, and a good example of why Congress is not good at writing FAA policy. But the intent was to ease up a bit and make sure pilots are still talking to their own doctors, while also making sure they have a modicum of education about aeromedical health considerations. Remember, the VAST majority of GA pilots don't hang out on internet pilot forums reading medical topics forums.

FAA leadership has supported 3rd class medical reform, but faced resistance up the chain of the executive branch. Whether or not that resistance will change with the next administration is anyone's guess, but I think we're certainly a step in the right direction. Eventually that 10 year look-back will be 12, 13 years...eventually there'll be really good reason to do away with it all together.

FWIW, this isn't the end for part 68. There will be tweaks and fixes eventually, but those tweaks and fixes will take time as they'll likely require going through the full rulemaking process.
 
Didn't read all the posts but.... I think all this does is stretch a 2 year requirement to a 4 year requirement and add another pain in the A$$ requirement to take the online course... Think I'll just keep my III.... AOPA didn't change a dam thing...rather than pound their chest, as usual... looks like they should pound sand instead....
 
FlySince9 said:
Didn't read all the posts but.... I think all this does is stretch a 2 year requirement to a 4 year requirement and add another pain in the A$$ requirement to take the online course... Think I'll just keep my III.... AOPA didn't change a dam thing...rather than pound their chest, as usual... looks like they should pound sand instead....
Click to expand...
You're lucky you're not on a Special Issuance like me and have to jump through hoops and pay for unnecessary tests every single year. This law is a huge benefit to people like me. Believe me I would love for a drivers license medical, but this is a step in the right direction.
 
Bingo! I have to renew my SI every year but to do it requires a specialist physician to do a status worksheet every 6 months. With this change I've taken my last AME physical and submitted my last SI. You guys have always been quick advise not to let an AME do any real doctoring. In my case the AME isn't qualified to do my doctoring. He's a paper administrator who looks at the doctor work of others. To waste my time and money on the AME process has been a regulatory requirement that provided no value to me. Thank goodness I can leave that process in the past!
 
Yep, If I had to venture a guess (and not even the Doctors here have said to the contrary) that the AMA was behind the DOT sitting on the earlier NPRM.
 
MassPilot said:
You're lucky you're not on a Special Issuance like me and have to jump through hoops and pay for unnecessary tests every single year. This law is a huge benefit to people like me. Believe me I would love for a drivers license medical, but this is a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Yea...guess I didn't look at it from that point of view...For guys like you (and maybe me in the future) Good deal, I guess...
 
Seems to be a lot of grumping from folks with pretty standard 3rd class medicals. The only way to make things much easier for those folks would be to eliminate the 3rd class entirely, which we all knew wasn't going to happen. For many, many people with SIs or even conditions that don't require an SI but require monitoring and additional information for issuance, this is a vast improvement. And for everyone, you don't have to worry about tracking all your doctor visits and stupid forms. You can go to the doctor without fear that you're going to have to disclose the visit the the FAA, which may decide that whatever you had requires six months of hoop jumping. Unless it's something serious, you're on your own. For most people, whether you're medically for to fly will just be a decision for you and your doctor.
 
I look forward to getting rid of my Apnea SI. Currently I have to get over 6 hours 75% of the days. I usually do much better than that but there are times when I just wake up early (it comes with age) and I can't fall back to sleep so I end up laying in bed for an hour or more just to get the 6 hours in for compliance. It is stupid. I use the machine when I am sleeping that should be enough.
 
I am way to lazy right now to read all this. Can I just keep doing it like I am now? Get a Class 3 from an AME every 2 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top