New BasicMed regs questions

V

Vincent Vuoto

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 6, 2023
Messages
7
Display Name
Display name:
Vinny
With the latest reg changes of BasicMed (12,500lbs MTOW, 6 passenger, and 7 seats allowed), some time in the next 5-10 years I will be looking at an aircraft that will haul my family comfortable 1,000+NM non-stop.
Besides all the single engine options available, I may be looking at a twin. With the new regs, what are the best twin options available for comfortable travel and a good useful load? I was thinking maybe a Cessna 340 or 414. I think they have 6 and 7 seats respectively.

Also, in your opinions, since BM was expanded, what other expansions might they allow in the future? Do you ever think they will allow flight into Class A airspace?

Thanks!
 
FYI the changes are not yet active. The reauthorization bill has been signed, but FAA has some period of time to implement the changes.

I would LOVE to see them raise altitude to at least FL250, preferably FL290.

Or, even better, morph Basic Med into the Class 3, and have have any of these restrictions.
 
First off, “1000+NM nonstop” and “comfortably” don’t generally go together in the sub-12,500-lb world. ;)

But more specifically, 300- and 400-series Cessnas can’t carry near full fuel with full seats, and you’ll find that nearly universally in that seat range sub-12,500.
 
I wish the regs would not set the passenger limit at the certified seat count but limit the passengers one can legally carry. This would open up some of the non-pressurized turbines that would be a good choice if limited to below 18K MSL... like a Kodiak.
 
Last edited:
Vincent Vuoto said:
With the latest reg changes of BasicMed (12,500lbs MTOW, 6 passenger, and 7 seats allowed), some time in the next 5-10 years I will be looking at an aircraft that will haul my family comfortable 1,000+NM non-stop.
…
Click to expand...
1000NM non-stop with pax is unicorn territory, especially when you consider reserve requirements.
 
MauleSkinner said:
But more specifically, 300- and 400-series Cessnas can’t carry near full fuel with full seats, and you’ll find that nearly universally in that seat range sub-12,500.
Click to expand...
This needs an asterisk, at least for unpressurized Cessna 300-series planes. Some 310s can fill seats and tanks and fly for almost 6 hours nonstop with IFR reserves, which is good for 1,000 nm without wind. But the guys in the back will absolutely stab you for subjecting them to it.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Why are these posts always 1000 miles?
Click to expand...
Because 1100nm would be rather unreasonable.... :p

Yea....my legs are determined by bladder volume. Short of 1st Class, even flying commercial has me climbing walls after 3.5hrs. I'm ready for a leg stretching after 3+ hrs anyway....might as well call it a fuel stop also.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Why are these posts always 1000 miles?
Click to expand...
Because there are a lot of useful 8-900 mile routes in the US.

Start from Chicago and draw a 900 mile circle. in the outer edge you have San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Austin, Denver, Tampa, Orlando, and most of New England.

Start from Houston and you have Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Omaha, Phoenix, Tucson Denver, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, all of Florida, and most of Mexico.

Note that the Northern and Southern borders are roughly 1,000 miles apart, and the Mississippi river is about 1,000 miles from more of the Eastern seaboard.

(Full disclosure: This is self-serving, as my personal locations of interest are nearby Houston, Milwaukee, and Charlotte - a rough 900 mile triangle)
 
robin ardoin said:
I wish the regs would not set the passenger limit at the certified seat count but limit the passengers one can legally carry. This would open up some of the non-pressurized turbines that would be a good choice if limited to below 18K MSL... like a Kodiak.
Click to expand...
You can go through the process of obtaining an STC.
 
Clip4 said:
You can go through the process of obtaining an STC.
Click to expand...
True. If I reach the point of being able to afford one, that is the route I will consider. Perhaps by then an enterprising BasicMed'er will have forged that path. :)
 
StraightnLevel said:
Because there are a lot of useful 8-900 mile routes in the US.

Start from Chicago and draw a 900 mile circle. in the outer edge you have San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Austin, Denver, Tampa, Orlando, and most of New England.

Start from Houston and you have Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Omaha, Phoenix, Tucson Denver, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, all of Florida, and most of Mexico.

Note that the Northern and Southern borders are roughly 1,000 miles apart, and the Mississippi river is about 1,000 miles from more of the Eastern seaboard.

(Full disclosure: This is self-serving, as my personal locations of interest are nearby Houston, Milwaukee, and Charlotte - a rough 900 mile triangle)
Click to expand...
Last time I checked, 900 isn’t the same as 1000. My plane can do 900. It can’t do 1000 (legally).
 
Navajo… but I think they are all certified for 8 seats too. My favorite piston twin.
 
Re: range vs cabin loading vs fuel - to be fair, the OP didn't specify the size of his "family". His "family" could be him, wife and chihuahua. In which case filling the tanks becomes reasonable. I believe a Malibu will do 1000 NM, for instance.

But yeah, for any normal definition of family, like two parents and two growing kids and all the baggage, 1000 NM is a hard (expensive) thing to achieve.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Why are these posts always 1000 miles?
Click to expand...
Two reasons. First, because it's a round number and, as mentioned above, it covers a pretty good part of where a person might want to go. A 1,000-mile radius from Kansas City includes Las Vegas, New York, and Tampa.

Second, because nobody who makes these posts has flown a 5-hour leg. :)
 
I think the old Saratoga SP might be able to do this or get pretty close. Even with full tanks the payload is over 900 pounds, and the cruise at best economy is 145-150. It'd be a long flight, but the old Saratoga SP seems like a decent candidate.
 
iamtheari said:
Two reasons. First, because it's a round number and, as mentioned above, it covers a pretty good part of where a person might want to go. A 1,000-mile radius from Kansas City includes Las Vegas, New York, and Tampa.

Second, because nobody who makes these posts has flown a 5-hour leg. :)
Click to expand...
Quote from the line guys in Rapid City:

Are you that guy we've been watching on FlightAware slowly making his way from Illinois?

That was 5 hours. My longest so far is 5.2. I don't typically recommend it.

Edit to add: that 5.2 hours was 680 nm.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Add in the occasional headwind, and you need a 1,000 mile range for a 900 mile route.
Click to expand...
My legs and bladder are good for 4 hours. Absolute max. Got a factor v leiden issue that runs in the family I may or may not have.... even if I was privy to draining the fire hose in the plane.

So my trips are broken down more by time than distance.
 
Racerx said:
My legs and bladder are good for 4 hours. Absolute max.

So my trips are broken down more by time than distance.
Click to expand...
Ditto. For my wife it's more like 3.5 max. We routinely make one 1000+NM trip a year (Osh). Since our bladders are the limiting factor it's a 2-leg trip for us with the one stop for gas and potty break roughly half-way. That stop costs us a maximum of 30 mins giving us a block time of 7 hrs takeoff to landing for the whole trip.
 
Thanks for all your replies! Let me clarify a few things that were brought up in the comments. My family is me (Dad), my wife, and 2 kids. Now, a 1yo boy and 4yo girl, but of course will be growing by the time I would be flying them around. Maybe by the time they're older (and heavier), they wouldn't mind a 3.5-4.5hr non-stop. And to be more realistic, I would probably really need an 800NM range for the places we'd be going. I'm based on Long Island and would love to fly south a lot. All of the NE would be in range but Florida non-stop would be a challenge. Also, it doesn't have to be a twin. Honestly, I'd probably prefer a Malibu.
Again, thanks for all your replies.
 
Vincent Vuoto said:
Thanks for all your replies! Let me clarify a few things that were brought up in the comments. My family is me (Dad), my wife, and 2 kids. Now, a 1yo boy and 4yo girl, but of course will be growing by the time I would be flying them around. Maybe by the time they're older (and heavier), they wouldn't mind a 3.5-4.5hr non-stop. And to be more realistic, I would probably really need an 800NM range for the places we'd be going. I'm based on Long Island and would love to fly south a lot. All of the NE would be in range but Florida non-stop would be a challenge. Also, it doesn't have to be a twin. Honestly, I'd probably prefer a Malibu.
Again, thanks for all your replies.
Click to expand...
KFRG-KMYR-OLBEC-KMIA puts a stop halfway between Long Island and Miami with legs of about 500 nm and no long segments with your feet wet. Your entire family will be happier (and be able to afford better colleges) if you get the best plane for the 500-mile mission and enjoy lunch somewhere like Myrtle Beach when you make the longer trips.
 
Vincent Vuoto said:
Also, it doesn't have to be a twin. Honestly, I'd probably prefer a Malibu.
Click to expand...

iamtheari said:
Your entire family will be happier (and be able to afford better colleges) if you get the best plane for the 500-mile mission and enjoy lunch somewhere like Myrtle Beach when you make the longer trips.
Click to expand...

If OP's considering a Malibu, I don't think he's too worried about paying for college.
 
Jim_R said:
If OP's considering a Malibu, I don't think he's too worried about paying for college.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But even if he is seriously considering a brand new M700 and asking about cash discounts, the better college might name a nicer building for him if he goes for the 500-mile plane. :)
 
Jim_R said:
If OP's considering a Malibu, I don't think he's too worried about paying for college.
Click to expand...

Not to belittle the OP, but I don’t think he has the knowledge base to understand CapEx, OpEx, and utilization of light GA.

OP mentioned seats for up to 6 for a thousand miles out of the northeast. Probably year round.

That calls for FIKI at a minimum, and until you get to boots or heated wings/props all FIKI gets you is a better odds at roulette. The more systems you add to the equation, the more weight, expense, and failure points you have.

Reliably, OP is probably looking at an SETP to get what he thinks a piston single or twin will get him from a dispatch rate and capability perspective.
 
For 1000+ mile legs you need a toilet and a copilot.
 
tsts4 said:
Ditto. For my wife it's more like 3.5 max. We routinely make one 1000+NM trip a year (Osh). Since our bladders are the limiting factor it's a 2-leg trip for us with the one stop for gas and potty break roughly half-way. That stop costs us a maximum of 30 mins giving us a block time of 7 hrs takeoff to landing for the whole trip.
Click to expand...
 
TCABM said:
Reliably, OP is probably looking at an SETP to get what he thinks a piston single or twin will get him from a dispatch rate and capability perspective.
Click to expand...
I see this sort of post a lot on this forum.

There is a whole lot of "that won't work" and "you can't do that" and "you can't afford it" that seems rather knee-jerk from a variety of sources here.

What is there for small family travel that you can't get from a Malibu? A Twin Comanche with tip tanks? A newer Bonanza w/ tip tanks?

Honestly, this sort of response seems to me to be trying to convince people to stay away from GA. I understand the need to keep expectations reasonable, but at what point does it become pure nay-saying?
 
StraightnLevel said:
I see this sort of post a lot on this forum.

There is a whole lot of "that won't work" and "you can't do that" and "you can't afford it" that seems rather knee-jerk from a variety of sources here.

What is there for small family travel that you can't get from a Malibu? A Twin Comanche with tip tanks? A newer Bonanza w/ tip tanks?

Honestly, this sort of response seems to me to be trying to convince people to stay away from GA. I understand the need to keep expectations reasonable, but at what point does it become pure nay-saying?
Click to expand...
Reality is a *****.
 
Salty said:
Reality is a *****.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying, but when on one hand you have someone saying - "You can't fly your family to the beach unless you have a PC-12", then you see the posts about some guys taking a very small plane all around Mexico....well, it's a fairly significant disconnect.
 
StraightnLevel said:
I see this sort of post a lot on this forum.

There is a whole lot of "that won't work" and "you can't do that" and "you can't afford it" that seems rather knee-jerk from a variety of sources here.

What is there for small family travel that you can't get from a Malibu? A Twin Comanche with tip tanks? A newer Bonanza w/ tip tanks?

Honestly, this sort of response seems to me to be trying to convince people to stay away from GA. I understand the need to keep expectations reasonable, but at what point does it become pure nay-saying?
Click to expand...
A twin Comanche with full fuel can cruise for what, 5 hours? Are you cruising at 200 mph? What's the useful load with full fuel? It's sure not six people. Maybe four small ones? And are they FIKI?

I think the point most people try to make, is that you're not going to be happy if your regular mission pushes the maximum theoretical capabilities of your aircraft.
 
StraightnLevel said:
I get what you're saying, but when on one hand you have someone saying - "You can't fly your family to the beach unless you have a PC-12", then you see the posts about some guys taking a very small plane all around Mexico....well, it's a fairly significant disconnect.
Click to expand...
Vincent Vuoto said:
will haul my family comfortable 1,000+NM non-stop.
Click to expand...
If he hadn't added that to his post, I'd agree with you.
 
Lindberg said:
A twin Comanche with full fuel can cruise for what, 5 hours? Are you cruising at 200 mph? What's the useful load with full fuel? It's sure not six people. Maybe four small ones? And are they FIKI?
Click to expand...

The PA-39 POH says 120 gal capacity, 114 usable. 75% throttle is 17.2 gph @ 169 KIAS. Useful load 735 lbs at full fuel; unless you have some really big kids, you'll be within tolerance. Stated range at 75% with full fuel 1,045nm.

FIKI is a good question.

 
StraightnLevel said:
The PA-39 POH says 120 gal capacity, 114 usable. 75% throttle is 17.2 gph @ 169 KIAS. Useful load 735 lbs at full fuel; unless you have some really big kids, you'll be within tolerance. Stated range at 75% with full fuel 1,045nm.

FIKI is a good question.

Click to expand...
So with an average American man and woman up front, you have 365# useful for kids + baggage.

So to get the range he wants, he'd be flying at our very near max gross all the time. And does that range include reserves? What if there's wind?
 
StraightnLevel said:
I see this sort of post a lot on this forum.

There is a whole lot of "that won't work" and "you can't do that" and "you can't afford it" that seems rather knee-jerk from a variety of sources here.

What is there for small family travel that you can't get from a Malibu? A Twin Comanche with tip tanks? A newer Bonanza w/ tip tanks?

Honestly, this sort of response seems to me to be trying to convince people to stay away from GA. I understand the need to keep expectations reasonable, but at what point does it become pure nay-saying?
Click to expand...
Everyone who posts in these threads has his or her own experience to draw on, but generally we just want to manage expectations so the people wanting to make these trips can get the most out of GA. That’s why you always see me posting the same things. My experience is that the 1,000-mile family trip is doable in an unpressurized, non-FIKI, piston-powered airplane. So I tell people how to accomplish it based on how I have accomplished it.

The key is to understand, accept, and embrace the limitations that come with that equipment. One of the limitations is that you will be safer and happier if you stop for lunch. Just as a point of reference, the prior owners of the 310 I fly are a family of professional pilots whose main mission was an 800-mile trip through the Rockies. They stopped halfway nearly every time. They upgraded to a turbine to go nonstop and get above the weather.

One of our missions in the 310 is 1,000 miles. I’ve never seriously considered doing it nonstop, although the plane is marginally capable of it. Our useful load is a bit over 2,000 lbs and 163 gallons usable fuel means we can fill the tanks and still load over 1,000 lbs of people and stuff. Cruising for 5.8 hours (plus IFR reserve) at 175 KTAS comes out to a bit over 1,000 miles. But everyone on the plane is happy to stop for lunch halfway.

Meanwhile, I can almost always make my trip, but sometimes I have to postpone or cancel it. More complex planes have more things to break. A twin has four magnetos and two alternators. You can lose 3 magnetos and both alternators in the air and keep flying until you run out of gas. But you can’t take off with any one of those things inoperative. We have boots, heated propellers, and an alcohol sprayer for the windshield, so we can escape some icing that a lesser plane might not escape. But our plan is still to escape promptly from any icing, not to continue flying through it or launch into it. I recently canceled a family trip because of a bad magneto followed by weeks of bad weather.

I encourage people to fly everywhere they want to go with everyone who wants to go with them. But I wouldn’t encourage anyone to buy a Malibu or a twin expecting to be able to keep to a specific schedule. To get the same dispatch rate and safety record as the airlines (which are almost but not quite 100%), you need two jets and four pilots. Anything less will have limitations that should be considered before picking a plane.

Some people have a different experience to draw from and give different advice. And most people are able to express their advice in fewer words than I just did. But at the end of the day, we all want every OP of these threads to succeed with GA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top