Flying a PA/32 on BasicMed

Glad to see it is available. Not sure if I am getting it or not yet. Still plan on staying 3rd class.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
drotto said:
Glad to see it is available. Not sure if I am getting it or not yet. Still plan on staying 3rd class.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Get the basic med anyway. FAA already ruled that YOU choose what medical you are flying under. If you get a "surprise" med issue pop up, you can fly on the Basic Med unless its that serious to completely ground you.

Just a thought.....
 
Unit74 said:
Get the basic med anyway. FAA already ruled that YOU choose what medical you are flying under. If you get a "surprise" med issue pop up, you can fly on the Basic Med unless its that serious to completely ground you.

Just a thought.....
Click to expand...

I didn’t know that but wondered. So if I have a valid 3rd class and met the basic med requirements (exam, online course, etc) and get ramp checked (flying a plane that qualifies for basic med) and I forgot, can’t find, etc. my 3rd class medical, I can just tell them I am flying under basic med?
 
Yes, that is correct. You can hold both certs and YoU decide which one you are operating under.
 
Mmmm I love the smell of bureaucracy in the morning.

We’re actually happy about the fact that we now have an option to pay money for a piece of paper that changes nothing physical about an airplane so we can fly it without having a different piece of paper. Oh, and that first mentioned piece of paper restricts another pilot that does have the second piece of paper from using the aircraft as it was originally certified.
 
*edited
The STC has issued and is now Free. We can be contacted through the aeronautix website, read out blog for more information.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding the STC.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
$500 is a small drop in the budget and opens up a whole 'nother line of aircraft to those of us who fly on basic med. Thank you for putting this STC out there and helping us out!
 
Really? Yea, I think the FAA really made a poor choice in how they classified the PA32s. But what did you do to solve it? Do you spend the man hours to get it solves?

Many, many PA32s have never had, and never will have 7 seats. Someone solved the elephant in the room for Piper PA32 and PA34 drivers and you have the audacity to call BS?

And yes, I have already paid the money and should get my STC in the mail next week.


Salty said:
Mmmm I love the smell of bureaucracy in the morning.

We’re actually happy about the fact that we now have an option to pay money for a piece of paper that changes nothing physical about an airplane so we can fly it without having a different piece of paper. Oh, and that first mentioned piece of paper restricts another pilot that does have the second piece of paper from using the aircraft as it was originally certified.
Click to expand...
 
The FAA had to draw the line in the sand somewhere for BasicMed. I would imagine going to 7 place occupancy opened BasicMed up to much larger aircraft so they capped it at 6.

Unfortunately most of the PA-32 and 34 series aircraft were certified 7, most likely as a marketing ploy by Piper to say they have 7 seats... even though we all know it's a small child's seat at best!

None the less, there's a solution now and we're happy to help keep everyone flying!
 
Unit74 said:
Really? Yea, I think the FAA really made a poor choice in how they classified the PA32s. But what did you do to solve it? Do you spend the man hours to get it solves?

Many, many PA32s have never had, and never will have 7 seats. Someone solved the elephant in the room for Piper PA32 and PA34 drivers and you have the audacity to call BS?

And yes, I have already paid the money and should get my STC in the mail next week.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I have the audacity to call BS. Of course, you missed the entire point of my post, it was not criticism against the STC. But it was a good rant, so flame on!
 
Jonathan Adams said:
The FAA had to draw the line in the sand somewhere for BasicMed. I would imagine going to 7 place occupancy opened BasicMed up to much larger aircraft so they capped it at 6....
Click to expand...
Congress capped it at six, not the FAA. What the FAA did was to misinterpret the word "authorized," as explained by an attorney earlier in the thread.
 
Last edited:
I received the STC today. For anyone with only 6 seats installed, it is a paperwork exercise with an IA only. No placarding or anything. Insert the POH docs, fill the 337 out and execute it with OKC.
 
Brad Z said:
That's correct. It's an unfortunate side effect of how Congress wrote Section 2307 creating BasicMed.
Click to expand...

I’m always impressed how a population of law makers made up of 80% lawyers can constantly screw stuff like that up. Not to mention the majority of their staffs.

Until I realize there’s a reason they went into politics instead of practicing law. They were so bad at it, they couldn’t make a living doing it.

Complete wastes of human life, pretty much.
 
Unit74 said:
Do you ever have that feeling you were just dealt a loaded deck of cards? Yea, I have that feeling right now. AOPA just dropped their own STC, and it's free.


https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...stc-makes-more-piper-pa32s-basicmed-compliant
Click to expand...

In light of AOPA releasing the same STC only a week after we did at much less cost, Aeronautix has decided it's only fair to refund all customers and offer our STC free to anyone. Please read our blog for more information on obtaining the STC or requesting a refund. Thanks!

https://www.aeronautix.com/blog/aeronautix-basicmed-6-place-stc-now-free-here-s-why
 
Last edited:
Wow.

I have to say that is the most noble thing I had anyone in aviation do for me, ever. I think it would be very easy to just move on and do nothing.


Thank you for what you have done!
 
What else does Aeronautix do? If you have a service that I need in the future, you will certainly have my business. Sorry you got screwed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
MauleSkinner said:
Just when I thought my opinion of AOPA couldn't get any lower...
Click to expand...

We're conflating issues here. The STC shouldn't exist in the first place. As such, AOPA rectified the situation. Nothing against the for-profit STC holder, but these things shouldn't exist in the first place. The FAA should have included the PA-32 as-is; there was no engineering to validate here, it's all make work kabuki and an oversight. These paper-only STCs are certainly yet another reason I hate certified aviation. To be fair, it pales in comparison with my contempt for the FAA's decision to snuff primary non-commercial.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Just when I thought my opinion of AOPA couldn't get any lower...
Click to expand...
Yeah I do not get the low opinion on this either. If the AOPA lied to the company pursuing the STC that is kinda low. On the other hand, AOPA is not making any money on this. I see no issue here.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
drotto said:
Yeah I do not get the low opinion on this either. If the AOPA lied to the company pursuing the STC that is kinda low. On the other hand, AOPA is not making any money on this. I see no issue here.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
So you see no issue with an aviation business working with AOPA to resolve an issue, and then AOPA turning around and causing loss of income to the aviation business.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you see no issue with an aviation business working with AOPA to resolve an issue, and then AOPA turning around and causing loss of income to the aviation business.
Click to expand...
I said if AOPA helped and then did their own thing to undercut them. That is a jerk move. AOPA would be in the wrong. Or at least they should have been honest and said we are looking into doing it also.

I am also not sure what the money math side of the equation is. How much did it cost to establish either STC? One person was saying they needed $500 to recoup their expenses and make some money. Somebody else says they can do it for free. How much could it really have cost to get it?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
drotto said:
I said if AOPA helped and then did their own thing to undercut them. That is a jerk move. AOPA would be in the wrong. Or at least they should have been honest and said we are looking into doing it also.
Click to expand...
Which is pretty much what appears to have happened...
Jonathan Adams said:
I'm sorry you feel that way. We just learned this today as well. Very upsetting that AOPA decides to come out with the same STC after we sent them an email in February asking them to publish an article to inform people Aeronautix was forging the path to support BasicMed, since no one else was doing it. We had multiple conversations with AOPA and were never once informed they were pursuing the same STC.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Which is pretty much what appears to have happened...
Click to expand...
So, you have one side of the story about something that may have simply been a miscommunication. Maybe it was an inadvertent mistake. One arm not talking to the other kind of thing.

Yeah, it sucks, and if it’s true, it’s disappointing. But there’s no evidence here that Aopa lied or acted maliciously.

In fact, it’s kind of ridiculous to think they did it on purpose. How would that benefit them?
 
Salty said:
So, you have one side of the story about something that may have simply been a miscommunication. Maybe it was an inadvertent mistake. One arm not talking to the other kind of thing.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that was it...one of my issues with AOPA is their apparently intentionally poor communication.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I'm sure that was it...one of my issues with AOPA is their apparently intentionally poor communication.
Click to expand...
There is zero evidence that it was intentional, and there’s no logical reason for them to do it intentionally.
 
Salty said:
There is zero evidence that it was intentional, and there’s no logical reason for them to do it intentionally.
Click to expand...
I have seen plenty of evidence that poor communication is AOPA SOP. There is zero evidence that this is any different.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I have seen plenty of evidence that poor communication is AOPA SOP. There is zero evidence that this is any different.
Click to expand...
You did not address what I actually said. It’s obvious you have an irrational axe to grind here. Grind away.
 
Salty said:
You did not address what I actually said. It’s obvious you have an irrational axe to grind here. Grind away.
Click to expand...
I have no axe to grind...apparently you're disagreeing with something I didn't say, but quoting me, because I haven't changed topics from what I said previously.
 
AOPA has been working on this for many months, at the request of AOPA members. The STC application was filed on Feb. 14 and the FAA issued it to AOPA on March 2, three months before the Aeronautix STC was issued. It is coincidental that both were announced this week.
 
I'm sure it was coincidental and we have no problem with AOPA offering a solution, it only makes sense that they would with their huge pilot outreach.

It should be noted that I am a happy AOPA member and support AOPA 100%. This was poor timing with lack of communication between the two companies. At the end of the day the GA community has 2 options to support them in their quest to keep flying. Happy flying :)
 
AOPA - here's something in the direct interest of our members.

PoA - DON'T DO YOUR JOB.

Thanks to AOPA for doing this, and many other things. Also thanks to Aeronautix for reciprocating.
 
N1120A said:
AOPA - here's something in the direct interest of our members.

PoA - DON'T DO YOUR JOB.

Thanks to AOPA for doing this, and many other things. Also thanks to Aeronautix for reciprocating.
Click to expand...
What is the job that you see PoA telling AOPA not to do? I'm not seeing any of that.
 
I don't get why AOPA would keep a lid on the STC while members were begging for it. I have had multiple email conversations over the last year and one phone conversation. The answer was always a personal response and it generally was" we are working with the FAA to get this sorted out". Not once was I told "we are working on an STC" so when Aeronautix dropped it, it was a no brainer to get it. For AOPA to drop it right after them, especially if they had it since what, March(?) is just a dick move simply because Aeronautix was communicating with AOPA on it.

But it's a double edged sword because it needed to be done and AOPA has the clout to do it and they did. They just went about it like the bully on the block.
 
MauleSkinner said:
What is the job that you see PoA telling AOPA not to do? I'm not seeing any of that.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what you're telling them to do. I don't belong to AOPA for them to sit around and let people charge me money for stuff. I belong to AOPA to have them advocate and innovate on my behalf and protect my right to fly.

Unit74 said:
I don't get why AOPA would keep a lid on the STC while members were begging for it. I have had multiple email conversations over the last year and one phone conversation. The answer was always a personal response and it generally was" we are working with the FAA to get this sorted out". Not once was I told "we are working on an STC" so when Aeronautix dropped it, it was a no brainer to get it. For AOPA to drop it right after them, especially if they had it since what, March(?) is just a dick move simply because Aeronautix was communicating with AOPA on it.

But it's a double edged sword because it needed to be done and AOPA has the clout to do it and they did. They just went about it like the bully on the block.
Click to expand...

Who knows the reasons? Maybe Aeronautix said they weren't going to charge, or it would be nominal? Maybe AOPA thought that enough of their membership was affected by this that they wanted to make sure they got this for no cost? Basic Med was an AOPA initiative, and a fairly poor technical determination by the FAA meant that a pretty significant GA plane was placed outside the regulations, which means AOPA had an active interest in this action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top